From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Oct 28 13:07:31 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C909D16A417 for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2007 13:07:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bv@bilver.wjv.com) Received: from wjv.com (fl-65-40-24-38.sta.embarqhsd.net [65.40.24.38]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BAC413C494 for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2007 13:07:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bv@bilver.wjv.com) Received: from bilver.wjv.com (localhost.wjv.com [127.0.0.1]) by wjv.com (8.14.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l9SCkA67081526 for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2007 08:46:15 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from bv@bilver.wjv.com) Received: (from bv@localhost) by bilver.wjv.com (8.14.1/8.13.1/Submit) id l9SCk4Vd081525 for freebsd-current@freebsd.org; Sun, 28 Oct 2007 08:46:04 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from bv) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 08:46:04 -0400 From: Bill Vermillion To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20071028124604.GA43062@wjv.com> References: <20071028081634.722CF16A547@hub.freebsd.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20071028081634.722CF16A547@hub.freebsd.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Organization: W.J.Vermillion / Orlando - Winter Park ReplyTo: bv@wjv.com Subject: Re: New bus-unit wiring via hints.. X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: bv@wjv.com List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 13:07:31 -0000 Wise men talk because they have something to say, however on Sun, Oct 28, 2007 at 08:16 , freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org just had to say something so we heard: > Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 20:53:21 +0200 > From: Erik Trulsson > Subject: Re: New-bus unit wiring via hints.. > On Sat, Oct 27, 2007 at 10:58:56AM -0700, John-Mark Gurney > wrote: > > Marcel Moolenaar wrote this message on Sat, Oct 27, 2007 at > > 10:48 -0700: > > > On Oct 27, 2007, at 10:42 AM, John-Mark Gurney wrote: > > > >I believe that the hints is the correct thing, Marcel never > > > >answered how to ensure ACPI kept sio0 as COM1, > > > I did answer that. You obvious did not read or understand a > > > I word was saying... > > Yeh, you're solution was to simply declare that anyone who > > knows that COM1 is at 0x3f8 is wrong, and to use a different, > > yet again arbitrary solution which is which is listed first in > > ACPI... > > To quote you: More legacy PC fixation. If the BIOS claims that > > COM1 is at 0x2f8 then so be it. If COM2 is enumerated first > > and it ends up as uart0 then so be it. There's no bug. It's > > all in a name. Device wiring would allow people to tie COM2 > > to uart1 if they want to, but all this COM-stuff is really > > nothing more than a fixation on 20-year old conventions that > > the rest of the world abandoned many years ago. It's turned > > into a bigger problem than it really is, mostly because we > > still have those stupid hints that are based on 20-year old > > conventions. > > So, if one ACPI implementation puts _UID = 0 at 0x3f8, but > > lists it after _UID = 1 at 0x2f8, that it's fine for sio0 to > > be _UID = 1? I'm fine w/ that... Just as long as we ship a > > hints file to keep us old farts sane... > Yup. If I in the BIOS setup screen tells the BIOS that the first > serial port should be at 0x3f8, and the second serial port > should be at 0x2f8, then it is very annoying if FreeBSD attaches > sio0 to the serial port at 0x2f8 and sio1 to the port at 0x3f8 > - the opposite of what I wanted. (This is not a hypothetical > example, by the way.) Hmm. I started running Xenix systems on Intel systems [SCO's Xenix, and Altos systems] back in the 1984 era. At that time as I recall it the BIOS was ONLY used to get the information to boot the system, and everything else in the BIOS was ignored. This caused a lot of confusion for people who had come from a DOS oriented world and saying things such as "well it works in DOS so *i*x must be broken. So - have things changed where the OS looks at the BIOS [in the *i*x world - or is it like this old fart remembers where BIOS was only used to find the HD and boot the OS? Bill -- Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com