From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Oct 27 19:10:25 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 4849C16A417 for ; Sat, 27 Oct 2007 19:10:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from xcllnt@mac.com) Received: from smtpoutm.mac.com (smtpoutm.mac.com [17.148.16.78]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3114E13C4A3 for ; Sat, 27 Oct 2007 19:10:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from xcllnt@mac.com) Received: from mac.com (asmtp001-s [10.150.69.64]) by smtpoutm.mac.com (Xserve/smtpout015/MantshX 4.0) with ESMTP id l9RJAP7g016218; Sat, 27 Oct 2007 12:10:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.24.104.109] (natint3.juniper.net [66.129.224.36]) (authenticated bits=0) by mac.com (Xserve/asmtp001/MantshX 4.0) with ESMTP id l9RJA8dT016063 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sat, 27 Oct 2007 12:10:08 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20071027175856.GL39759@funkthat.com> 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 (Apple Message framework v752.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <9F674BF7-58E2-4DC5-A082-F5128316F889@mac.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Marcel Moolenaar Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 12:09:29 -0700 To: John-Mark Gurney X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2) Cc: current@freebsd.org 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 19:10:25 -0000 On Oct 27, 2007, at 10:58 AM, John-Mark Gurney wrote: > 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... Exactly. Anyone who "knows" that COM1 is at 0x3f8 while the computer right in front of them clearly states that COM1 is at 0x2f8 is in denial. > 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? Yes. sio0 is nothing more than the first serial port found during enumeration. > So, why are you continuing to argue about a simple thing that you > on your > machines can simply remove the hints? The ability to wire is good. Implementing it right is important. > What are your technical arguments > for mandating a different, non-historical, based arbitrary selection? I'm not mandating anything. I'm merely pointing out how reality has changed and that it's important to adapt, adopt and improve... Where are your technical arguments, putting aside the mere technically of the statement that you consider yourself an old fart? -- Marcel Moolenaar marcelm@juniper.net