From owner-freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Dec 17 21:51:50 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 7E0DA16A41F; Sat, 17 Dec 2005 21:51:50 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jrhett@mail.meer.net) Received: from outbound0.sv.meer.net (outbound0.sv.meer.net [205.217.152.13]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A180D43D66; Sat, 17 Dec 2005 21:51:46 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jrhett@mail.meer.net) Received: from mail.meer.net (mail.meer.net [209.157.152.14]) by outbound0.sv.meer.net (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id jBHLpjQN021300; Sat, 17 Dec 2005 13:51:45 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jrhett@mail.meer.net) Received: from mail.meer.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.meer.net (8.13.3/8.13.3/meer) with ESMTP id jBHLpX9j092637; Sat, 17 Dec 2005 13:51:33 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jrhett@mail.meer.net) Received: (from jrhett@localhost) by mail.meer.net (8.13.3/8.13.3) id jBHLpXUh092635; Sat, 17 Dec 2005 13:51:33 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jrhett) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 13:51:33 -0800 From: Joe Rhett To: John Baldwin Message-ID: <20051217215133.GA92180@svcolo.com> References: <20051117050336.GB67653@svcolo.com> <200512051522.41965.jhb@freebsd.org> <20051216063654.GA49191@svcolo.com> <200512161125.19927.jhb@freebsd.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200512161125.19927.jhb@freebsd.org> Organization: svcolo.com User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Cc: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org 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: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 21:51:50 -0000 > 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