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.