*BSD News Article 33998


Return to BSD News archive

Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!msuinfo!agate!soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU!tmonroe
From: tmonroe@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU ()
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.questions
Subject: Re: FreeBSD SoundBlaster support
Date: 7 Aug 1994 19:23:28 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Undergraduate Association, UC Berkeley
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <323cbg$mo9@agate.berkeley.edu>
References: <321lar$k58@qualcomm.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.csua.berkeley.edu

In article <321lar$k58@qualcomm.com>, Brian Ellis <bri@qualcomm.com> wrote:

>The FAQ says SB's are supported.  I just can't believe that support
>would be compiled in unconditionally. I'd like to figure this out
>before I go to all the immense hassle of upgrading to get the SB
>support. Thanks in advance for your input. email is preferred.

I know that you would have preferred email, but this (I think) is
important enough to tell everyone about.  I recently upgraded to
1.1.5.1, and I tried to use the same kernel config file to build my
first 1.1.5.1 kernel.  Under 1.1R, my Sound Blaster kernel was ~576K.
However, under 1.1.5.1, the same kernel config file produced a kernel
which, although under 640K, wasn't far enough under 640K that the
kernel could function properly.  (It was about 639K.)  It would reboot
in the middle of the reboot, ad infinitum, ad nauseam.  Perhaps the
core team could explain this behavior?  And what makes the Sound
Blaster code bloat the kernel to such an ungainly size?

Until we figure this one out, try to keep the Sound Blaster stuff out
of your kernel.  I have my kernel trimmed down about as small as I can
get away with, and it's still too big to accomodate the Sound Blaster.