Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 15:12:59 -0400 From: "Donald J . Maddox" <dmaddox@conterra.com> To: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au> Cc: dmaddox@conterra.com, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Loss of Functionality with newpnp Message-ID: <19990926151259.A1327@dmaddox.conterra.com> In-Reply-To: <199909261859.LAA13355@dingo.cdrom.com> References: <19990926145557.B430@dmaddox.conterra.com> <199909261859.LAA13355@dingo.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Sep 26, 1999 at 11:59:33AM -0700, Mike Smith wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 26, 1999 at 11:41:14AM -0700, Mike Smith wrote: > > > > > > PnP is an infrastructure facility used by drivers to detect and > > > configure hardware. The side-effect you were relying on was that the > > > old code would indiscriminately configure any and all PnP hardware > > > regardless of whether a driver had requested it to. > > > > Why is this not desirable? > > I've already asked you to do your own research, and I meant it. The > simple answer is "if we don't have a [working] driver for it, we don't > want it". But we do have a working driver for the AWE64. Or rather, it worked fine before the new PnP code was comitted, now it doesn't. It seems to me that this indicates a deficiency in the new PnP code. Isn't that correct? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19990926151259.A1327>