From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Jan 27 11:14:14 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA15564 for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jan 1998 11:14:14 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from bootp.sls.usu.edu (bootp.sls.usu.edu [129.123.15.47]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA15553 for ; Tue, 27 Jan 1998 11:14:03 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from kurto@bootp.sls.usu.edu) Received: (from kurto@localhost) by bootp.sls.usu.edu (8.8.2/8.8.2) id MAA18031 for freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org; Tue, 27 Jan 1998 12:13:41 -0700 (MST) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 12:13:41 -0700 (MST) From: Kurt Olsen Message-Id: <199801271913.MAA18031@bootp.sls.usu.edu> To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Proposed PNP changes Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk After checking out the PNP support in 3.0 and 2.5-STABLE, I came to the conclusion that it could do more. So here's my thoughts, and hopefully I'll get something done this weekend. The primary changes I want to make: 1 - grok the configuration information before USERCONFIG and identify all LDNs and the resources they want as well as the configuration values they accept. 2 - recognize the compatible tag for devices where we don't have card specific drivers, but we do have general drivers. ie. I have a plug and play ethernet card that's been in hardwired mode for the last year, but it's ne2000 compatible and there's no reason it couldn't be dynamically configured before the ed0 probe. Any suggestions? Or comments? Any reason why I won't be able to run the isolation protocol before userconfig?