From owner-freebsd-mobile Sat Jan 31 23:28:05 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA01648 for freebsd-mobile-outgoing; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 23:28:05 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-mobile@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from u3.farm.idt.net (root@u3.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.12]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA01643 for ; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 23:28:04 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from garycorc@idt.net) Received: from idt.net (ppp-15.ts-1.mlb.idt.net [169.132.71.15]) by u3.farm.idt.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id CAA10496 for ; Sun, 1 Feb 1998 02:27:57 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <34D423B2.8991A779@idt.net> Date: Sun, 01 Feb 1998 02:26:42 -0500 From: "Gary T. Corcoran" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-mobile@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: COM port detection Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-mobile@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org X-To-Unsubscribe: mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org "unsubscribe freebsd-mobile" I have a Toshiba Tecra 750, and am running FreeBSD 2.2.5-BETA. The built-in COM1 port (sio0) was not being detected. Upon investigation, I found that it was failing probe tests 5 and 8, which look for the removal of the interrupt in the interrupt controller after interrupts are cleared or disabled in the COM port. I tried adding more delay (10x) to the DELAY() call in front of these tests, but it didn't help. So I tried just commenting out tests 5 and 8, and the port gets detected. I hooked up a modem to the COM port and found I could 'talk' to the modem. From my quick test everything seems okay - except I do get one strange-looking message during boot: sio0: 64 events for device with no tp What is a "tp" ? Am I the first one to have this problem? Although I have "solved" the problem for the time being, I would rather not have to put a kludge in the code. But since the result just doesn't seem to be what the tests expects, I'm not sure what "fix" can be put in the code other than not performing the checks... :-( Any ideas/comments? Thanks, Gary