Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 00:02:34 -0700 From: "Kevin Oberman" <oberman@es.net> To: Marcel Moolenaar <xcllnt@mac.com> Cc: John-Mark Gurney <gurney_j@resnet.uoregon.edu>, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: New-bus unit wiring via hints.. Message-ID: <20071028070234.0B04345028@ptavv.es.net> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 27 Oct 2007 15:04:40 PDT." <28D8C5EF-8BAB-433D-A6E3-25B2A40B9BD1@mac.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--==_Exmh_1193554954_50909P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline > From: Marcel Moolenaar <xcllnt@mac.com> > Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 15:04:40 -0700 > > > On Oct 27, 2007, at 2:24 PM, Kevin Oberman wrote: > > >> From: Marcel Moolenaar <xcllnt@mac.com> > >> Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 13:57:25 -0700 > >> > >> > >> On Oct 27, 2007, at 12:40 PM, Kevin Oberman wrote: > >> > >>>> I'm not mandating anything. I'm merely pointing out how > >>>> reality has changed and that it's important to adapt, > >>>> adopt and improve... > >>> > >>> "Reality has changed"? Yes, it has, at least a bit, but not to the > >>> point where we want to confuse serial ports. > >> > >> Are you saying that "we" should accept reality's change > >> only for as far as it doesn't confuse "us" ??? > > > > Just in case I don't understand the issue, feel free to correct me, > > but > > it sounds like you are saying that there will not be a clear link > > between the serial port (sio) number and the port marked '1' on most > > systems. If I am wrong about this, please tell me and I climb back > > under my rock. > > That is not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is: > If the firmware tells the OS that the port marked > "1" on the back corresponds to a UART that has a > base I/O port address of 0x2e8, then who are we > to disagree and demand that it should be 0x3f8? > > You rightly point out that what it really boils > down to is how devX maps to a port on the back or > front of the machine. This mapping should not > change gratuitously. Device wiring achieves that. OK. I'm still not entirely comfortable with this, but you make an excellent point here. I'd feel better about it if I had not encountered so many systems with broken BIOS, though. > Why not? You replace a mainboard. You really replaced the > whole computer, because there's no concept of chassis > port numbers in FreeBSD. All we know about the hardware > is what is on the mainboard. > > > The new system has, to the typical user's eyes, the same > > configuration. > > Yes. this means there's a gap between what the user sees > (the chassis) and what FreeBSD sees (the mainboard). As > long as the mainboard is designed for the chassis, that > gap is mostly non-existent or insignificant and what the > firmware tells the OS is what you see on the back (or > front). Otherwise, all bets are off... > Once again, this assumes competent firmware from the manufacturer, but you are probably really right. I guess it goes back to when you HAD to specify an address and IRQ for every device (as well as where it tied to the system) in the old days and I will concede that those days are past and that is a good thing. -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: oberman@es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634 Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4 EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751 --==_Exmh_1193554954_50909P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (FreeBSD) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 06/03/2002 iD8DBQFHJDQKkn3rs5h7N1ERAqV1AJ0bjcJBtjJL+4iL40j6vkoeDbmMBQCfUhmo H+aa51dO3IF0Ihdz7YKz/U8= =M5PU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_1193554954_50909P--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20071028070234.0B04345028>