From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Oct 27 18:53:39 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C365316A41A for ; Sat, 27 Oct 2007 18:53:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from erikt@midgard.homeip.net) Received: from ch-smtp01.sth.basefarm.net (ch-smtp01.sth.basefarm.net [80.76.149.212]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FAE313C4A8 for ; Sat, 27 Oct 2007 18:53:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from erikt@midgard.homeip.net) Received: from c83-253-25-183.bredband.comhem.se ([83.253.25.183]:63649 helo=falcon.midgard.homeip.net) by ch-smtp01.sth.basefarm.net with esmtp (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1Ilqmn-0000x5-5n for current@freebsd.org; Sat, 27 Oct 2007 20:53:30 +0200 Received: (qmail 67694 invoked from network); 27 Oct 2007 20:53:21 +0200 Received: from owl.midgard.homeip.net (10.1.5.7) by falcon.midgard.homeip.net with ESMTP; 27 Oct 2007 20:53:21 +0200 Received: (qmail 96236 invoked by uid 1001); 27 Oct 2007 20:53:21 +0200 Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 20:53:21 +0200 From: Erik Trulsson To: Marcel Moolenaar , current@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20071027185321.GA96177@owl.midgard.homeip.net> Mail-Followup-To: Marcel Moolenaar , current@freebsd.org References: <200710111741.34992.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <200710151216.36509.jhb@freebsd.org> <3E7A944C-6182-41A1-8881-C4B94428B65A@mac.com> <200710151510.35000.jhb@freebsd.org> <20071027174205.GK39759@funkthat.com> <20071027175856.GL39759@funkthat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20071027175856.GL39759@funkthat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) X-Originating-IP: 83.253.25.183 X-Scan-Result: No virus found in message 1Ilqmn-0000x5-5n. X-Scan-Signature: ch-smtp01.sth.basefarm.net 1Ilqmn-0000x5-5n 2e266a3ab3f8affabde83740f90c1d49 Cc: Subject: Re: New-bus unit wiring via hints.. X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 18:53:39 -0000 On Sat, Oct 27, 2007 at 10:58:56AM -0700, John-Mark Gurney wrote: > Marcel Moolenaar wrote this message on Sat, Oct 27, 2007 at 10:48 -0700: > > > > On Oct 27, 2007, at 10:42 AM, John-Mark Gurney wrote: > > > > >I believe that the hints is the correct thing, Marcel never > > >answered how > > >to ensure ACPI kept sio0 as COM1, > > > > I did answer that. You obvious did not read or understand a word > > I was saying... > > Yeh, you're solution was to simply declare that anyone who knows that > COM1 is at 0x3f8 is wrong, and to use a different, yet again arbitrary > solution which is which is listed first in ACPI... > > To quote you: > More legacy PC fixation. If the BIOS claims that COM1 is at 0x2f8 then > so be it. If COM2 is enumerated first and it ends up as uart0 then so be > it. There's no bug. It's all in a name. Device wiring would allow people > to tie COM2 to uart1 if they want to, but all this COM-stuff is really > nothing more than a fixation on 20-year old conventions that the rest > of the world abandoned many years ago. It's turned into a bigger problem > than it really is, mostly because we still have those stupid hints that > are based on 20-year old conventions. > > So, if one ACPI implementation puts _UID = 0 at 0x3f8, but lists it > after _UID = 1 at 0x2f8, that it's fine for sio0 to be _UID = 1? I'm > fine w/ that... Just as long as we ship a hints file to keep us old > farts sane... Yup. If I in the BIOS setup screen tells the BIOS that the first serial port should be at 0x3f8, and the second serial port should be at 0x2f8, then it is very annoying if FreeBSD attaches sio0 to the serial port at 0x2f8 and sio1 to the port at 0x3f8 - the opposite of what I wanted. (This is not a hypothetical example, by the way.) Being able to tell FreeBSD that sio0 should attach to the serial port at 0x3f8 (which I have told the BIOS to use for the first serial port) and attach sio1 to the port at 0x2f8 sounds like a very good idea, and the hints mechanism sounds like the right way to do this. (Note that I have not said a word in the above about COM1 or COM2. First and second port refers to the physical position at the back of the machine.) > > So, why are you continuing to argue about a simple thing that you on your > machines can simply remove the hints? What are your technical arguments > for mandating a different, non-historical, based arbitrary selection? > > -- > John-Mark Gurney Voice: +1 415 225 5579 > > "All that I will do, has been done, All that I have, has not." > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" -- Erik Trulsson ertr1013@student.uu.se