Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 13:51:33 -0800 From: Joe Rhett <jrhett@svcolo.com> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Subject: Re: com1 incorrectly associated with ttyd1, com2 with ttyd0 Message-ID: <20051217215133.GA92180@svcolo.com> In-Reply-To: <200512161125.19927.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <20051117050336.GB67653@svcolo.com> <200512051522.41965.jhb@freebsd.org> <20051216063654.GA49191@svcolo.com> <200512161125.19927.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Friday 16 December 2005 01:36 am, Joe Rhett wrote: > > 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? On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 11:25:19AM -0500, John Baldwin wrote: > No. You would understand that if you had actually read my earlier e-mails. I did, but out of order of this reply. Sorry. > 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. Are you saying that changing PNP to "No" would make it easier for FreeBSD? Are there any disadvantages to this? -- Jo Rhett senior geek SVcolo : Silicon Valley Colocation
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20051217215133.GA92180>