From owner-freebsd-current Tue Oct 1 09:28:50 1996 Return-Path: owner-current Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id JAA28429 for current-outgoing; Tue, 1 Oct 1996 09:28:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (localhost.cdrom.com [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id JAA28421; Tue, 1 Oct 1996 09:28:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199610011628.JAA28421@freefall.freebsd.org> To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" cc: Michael Smith , bde@FreeBSD.org, current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Your UserConfig changes for unmasking PCI devices... In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 01 Oct 1996 02:34:14 PDT." <4208.844162454@time.cdrom.com> Date: Tue, 01 Oct 1996 09:28:45 -0700 From: "Justin T. Gibbs" Sender: owner-current@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk >> I think (MHOO) that things were better when PCI devices weren't listed. >> I know I meant them to show up, but unless they get grouped seperately >> (ie. in a seperate class) you're right; people will get confused. > >Even having the bus type displayed in the description string, perhaps >in a different text attribute, would be enough. So you'd see: > >bt0 Buslogic SCSI controller [PCI] >bt0 Buslogic SCSI controller [ISA/EISA/VLB] > >And *only* if the machine in question even had a PCI bus. I can't see >any reason to show the PCI entries on my 486/EISA test machine. :-) > > Jordan At the time UserConfig comes up, you haven't even probed for a PCI bus, so you don't know if one exists or not. -- Justin T. Gibbs =========================================== FreeBSD: Turning PCs into workstations ===========================================