From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <c9886d7ce074d0b8b3d5816b9470a8b4@quanstro.net>
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 17:41:32 -0500
To: 9fans@9fans.net
In-Reply-To: <509071940812181356t6b867ac7wbc57dd9f833638ab@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] Motherboard recommendations?
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 69234984-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Thu Dec 18 16:58:02 EST 2008, anothy@gmail.com wrote:
> i've look through the changes and am not clear on how the sb700 will
> be handled. it sounded like you were saying all the sb[67]xx chips are
> handled the same, but the did is different (439D). it it just a matter
> of adding it to the big switch(p->vid) statement?

you don't need to.  if the vid is amd's, several chipsets
are recognized as Tsb600 (sic) and the rest are recognized
as Tunk via the fallthrough match on the device type/subtype/pi.
there is no special handling of Tsb600, so Tunk is equivalent,
but the boot message will be a bit odd.

- erik