Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 22:59:47 -0600 (MDT) From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> To: gavin.atkinson@ury.york.ac.uk Cc: stable@freebsd.org, marck@rinet.ru Subject: Re: puc and sio Message-ID: <20060622.225947.635732173.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <1150735321.47111.16.camel@buffy.york.ac.uk> References: <20060619024759.I13558@woozle.rinet.ru> <1150735321.47111.16.camel@buffy.york.ac.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message: <1150735321.47111.16.camel@buffy.york.ac.uk>
Gavin Atkinson <gavin.atkinson@ury.york.ac.uk> writes:
: On Mon, 2006-06-19 at 02:56 +0400, Dmitry Morozovsky wrote:
: > Dear colelagues,
: >
: > playing with puc compatible MOXA card I found that it's rather useless with
: > contemporary DEFAULT kernel:
: >
: > - sio compiled in, puc as module - puc identified, but no sio ports detected,
: > even when puc.ko is loaded by loader
: > - sio and puc both loaded as modules - all sio ports detected, but comconsole
: > cannot be activated
: > - sio and puc compiled in kernel - all work flawlessly
: >
: > Maybe it's time to consider including puc in GENERIC?
:
: Yes - this has been brought up a few times before. Another alternative
: is the patch in
: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2005-December/058909.html - but there was at least one objection to it. I'm not convinced the current status quo is acceptable, though.
This patch is bad and should not be committed. It makes puc a special
case when it comes to attachments. The problem is somewhat more
wide-ranging than just puc, and fixing it generally would massively
bloatify static kernels.
Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060622.225947.635732173.imp>