Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 11:32:13 -0400 From: Jake Burkholder <jake@locore.ca> To: David O'Brien <obrien@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/etc/etc.sparc64 ttys Message-ID: <20030911153213.GD12432@locore.ca> In-Reply-To: <20030911151425.GA85714@dragon.nuxi.com> References: <200309110014.h8B0EHOX044603@repoman.freebsd.org> <xzpisnz68d0.fsf@dwp.des.no> <20030911151425.GA85714@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Apparently, On Thu, Sep 11, 2003 at 08:14:25AM -0700, David O'Brien said words to the effect of; > On Thu, Sep 11, 2003 at 10:24:11AM +0200, Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav wrote: > > Jake Burkholder <jake@FreeBSD.org> writes: > > > Log: > > > Changed the ttyd entries to ttyu, which correspond to the device nodes > > > created by uart(4). > > > > Is there a good reason for uart to use ttyu instead of ttyd? There's > > no risk of conflict even if both uart and sio are present, thanks to > > devfs, so why not use the traditional name? > > I hate to say it -- as an owner of sparc64 and amd64, alpha, & i386 > FreeBSD machines using serial consoles and thus affected by this, I agree > with des. > I didn't pick the name and don't see that it makes much difference. You'll have to take this up with Marcel. Jake
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030911153213.GD12432>