Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 11:24:09 +1000 From: Jan Mikkelsen <janm@transactionware.com> To: Yuri <yuri@rawbw.com> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, d@delphij.net, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>, Xin LI <delphij@delphij.net> Subject: Re: How to use unrecognized COM port card? Message-ID: <16D60EA7-85C7-486D-A722-50299407DC69@transactionware.com> In-Reply-To: <4E4AD9B6.2030001@rawbw.com> References: <4E4A0C81.7020501@rawbw.com> <4E4A20BE.3060603@delphij.net> <4E4A3788.3030605@rawbw.com> <201108161157.20890.jhb@freebsd.org> <4E4ACAAD.3030506@rawbw.com> <4E4AD50E.6050906@delphij.net> <4E4AD9B6.2030001@rawbw.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 17/08/2011, at 6:57 AM, Yuri wrote: > On 08/16/2011 13:37, Xin LI wrote: >> And I think John's patch is right, I've added a new PCI ID for it >> though, found from the datasheet. Did you have uart(4) in your = kernel >> (remove my old patch)? >=20 > Yes, uart(4) is in kernel and puc(4) is the loaded module. I think = this might be a problem that puc(4) is a module loaded later and that's = why serial device isn't registered. I found the reference to the similar = situation with some other card that got cured when puc(4) was compiled = into kernel. = (http://www.adras.com/Quadtech-DSC-100-PCI-dual-serial-port-on-8-0R-i386.t= 6999-79.html) >=20 > I have yet to try building puc(4) into kernel, but the way how I have = it now is the default in GENERIC. Should uart(4) instead be removed from = kernel and made loadable too to prevent such initialization order issue? = Or what would be the right fix? Have too much stuff in kernel isn't = right too. uart probably isn't used by 99% of users. For my recent Moxa 2 port serial card addition, I had to include puc in = the kernel config; it didn't work as a module. Jan.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?16D60EA7-85C7-486D-A722-50299407DC69>