From owner-freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 16 16:25:06 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 B194716A41F for ; Fri, 16 Dec 2005 16:25:06 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from speedfactory.net (mail6.speedfactory.net [66.23.216.219]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0CB043D5A for ; Fri, 16 Dec 2005 16:25:02 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from server.baldwin.cx (unverified [66.23.211.162]) by speedfactory.net (SurgeMail 3.5b3) with ESMTP id 3946539 for multiple; Fri, 16 Dec 2005 11:22:54 -0500 Received: from localhost (john@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by server.baldwin.cx (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id jBGGOnx4080681; Fri, 16 Dec 2005 11:24:49 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) From: John Baldwin To: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 11:25:19 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.2 References: <20051117050336.GB67653@svcolo.com> <200512051522.41965.jhb@freebsd.org> <20051216063654.GA49191@svcolo.com> In-Reply-To: <20051216063654.GA49191@svcolo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200512161125.19927.jhb@freebsd.org> X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.87.1/1210/Thu Dec 15 10:23:22 2005 on server.baldwin.cx X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=4.2 tests=ALL_TRUSTED autolearn=failed version=3.0.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on server.baldwin.cx X-Server: High Performance Mail Server - http://surgemail.com r=1653887525 Cc: Joe Rhett 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 16:25:06 -0000 On Friday 16 December 2005 01:36 am, Joe Rhett wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 08:58:04PM +1100, Bruce Evans wrote: > > > > It's not clear that disabling in the BIOS should disable for all > > > > OSes. > > > > On Monday 05 December 2005 03:05 pm, Joe Rhett wrote: > > > What? That's a fairly weird interpretation. If I want to disable > > > inside a given OS, I do that inside the OS. If I want to disable for > > > _ALL_ OSes, then I disable in the BIOS. What reasonable logic can > > > argue otherwise? > > On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 03:22:40PM -0500, John Baldwin wrote: > > The BIOS doesn't say "X is disabled", it just doesn't have any resources > > setup for X. > > Well, this is where what the BIOS "says" and what the user is led to > expect, are different that what you are arguing for. And on top of that, > every major OS except for FreeBSD does the right thing (acts like it isn't > there) > > Isn't it fairly obvious that no resources setup for a peripheral means > "disabled in BIOS" and it would be best to ignore that resource? No. You would understand that if you had actually read my earlier e-mails. If you set PnP OS to yes, then the BIOS is free to not enable any devices not needed for booting. Thus, even if you didn't have COM1 disabled if it didn't need COM1 to boot and you had PnP OS set to yes, it could not assign any resources to COM1 and require the OS to set the resources. There isn't any way for the OS to know if you disabled the device, or if you used PnP OS and the BIOS didn't configure that device _even_ _though_ _it_ _is_ _enabled_ _in_ _the_ _BIOS_ _setup_ because it didn't feel like it. -- John Baldwin <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve" = http://www.FreeBSD.org