Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 23:31:44 +0400 From: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Cc: Mike G <mike@v.gz.ru>, current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: uart and puc attach conflict Message-ID: <20051025193144.GU41520@cell.sick.ru> In-Reply-To: <20051025174337.GA45694@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <025401c5d953$47004480$821cfa9e@mics.msu.su> <20051025174337.GA45694@xor.obsecurity.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Oct 25, 2005 at 01:43:37PM -0400, Kris Kennaway wrote: K> > I have a problem with multi-port card based on Nm9845 chip. K> > It's a card with 4 com-ports. K> > It perfectly works with puc(4) and sio(4) drivers if they compiled into K> > kernel. K> > or with puc(4) and uart(4) drivers if they loaded manualy. K> > But if puc(4) and uart(4) are compiled into kernel or loaded from K> > loader.conf - problem appears. K> K> Isn't puc superceded by uart? Why do you need both? Shouldn't uarts attach on puc? This is what I have in 5.4-STABLE system: puc0: <Cronyx Omega2-PCI> mem 0xea202000-0xea202fff irq 5 at device 11.0 on pci0 uart0: <16750 or compatible> on puc0 uart1: <16750 or compatible> on puc0 uart2: <16750 or compatible> on puc0 uart3: <16750 or compatible> on puc0 uart4: <16750 or compatible> on puc0 uart5: <16750 or compatible> on puc0 uart6: <16750 or compatible> on puc0 uart7: <16750 or compatible> on puc0 Should it be other way in 6.0 and HEAD? -- Totus tuus, Glebius. GLEBIUS-RIPN GLEB-RIPE
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20051025193144.GU41520>