From owner-freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 16 06:43:32 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E30B16A41F; Fri, 16 Dec 2005 06:43:32 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jrhett@mail.meer.net) Received: from outbound0.sv.meer.net (outbound0.sv.meer.net [205.217.152.13]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6D4443D5A; Fri, 16 Dec 2005 06:43:21 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jrhett@mail.meer.net) Received: from mail.meer.net (mail.meer.net [209.157.152.14]) by outbound0.sv.meer.net (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id jBG6hKQR039575; Thu, 15 Dec 2005 22:43:21 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jrhett@mail.meer.net) Received: from mail.meer.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.meer.net (8.13.3/8.13.3/meer) with ESMTP id jBG6h0Pt053978; Thu, 15 Dec 2005 22:43:00 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jrhett@mail.meer.net) Received: (from jrhett@localhost) by mail.meer.net (8.13.3/8.13.3) id jBG6h0M5053977; Thu, 15 Dec 2005 22:43:00 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jrhett) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 22:43:00 -0800 From: Joe Rhett To: John Baldwin , t@svcolo.com Message-ID: <20051216064300.GC49191@svcolo.com> References: <20051117050336.GB67653@svcolo.com> <200512011153.50287.jhb@freebsd.org> <20051205200709.GC13194@svcolo.com> <200512051526.48117.jhb@freebsd.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200512051526.48117.jhb@freebsd.org> Organization: svcolo.com User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Cc: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Subject: Re: com1 incorrectly associated with ttyd1, com2 with ttyd0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of FreeBSD hardware List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 06:43:32 -0000 > On Monday 05 December 2005 03:07 pm, Joe Rhett wrote: > > So what's involved in simply having it say > > Found : disabled in BIOS > > instead of half a dozen complaints for each disabled device? On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 03:26:47PM -0500, John Baldwin wrote: > There's no disabled flag. If you have PNP OS set to yes in your BIOS, it is > free to leave any devices not needed for booting unconfigured (like printer > ports, serial ports, etc.) and there is no way for the OS to know if the BIOS > didn't alloc resources because it is disabled or because the BIOS was just > lazy. If this is impossible to know, why do Windows and Linux both handle it properly? -- Jo Rhett senior geek SVcolo : Silicon Valley Colocation