From owner-freebsd-current Sun Nov 26 7:11:49 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mail8.sc.rr.com (fe8.southeast.rr.com [24.93.67.55]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FB4137B6F7 for ; Sun, 26 Nov 2000 07:10:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from cae88-102-101.sc.rr.com ([24.88.102.101]) by mail8.sc.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Sun, 26 Nov 2000 10:09:18 -0500 Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 15:12:59 -0400 From: "Donald J . Maddox" To: Mike Smith Cc: dmaddox@conterra.com, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Loss of Functionality with newpnp Message-ID: <19990926151259.A1327@dmaddox.conterra.com> Reply-To: dmaddox@conterra.com References: <19990926145557.B430@dmaddox.conterra.com> <199909261859.LAA13355@dingo.cdrom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3i In-Reply-To: <199909261859.LAA13355@dingo.cdrom.com> Content-Length: 828 Lines: 17 Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Sun, Sep 26, 1999 at 11:59:33AM -0700, Mike Smith wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 26, 1999 at 11:41:14AM -0700, Mike Smith wrote: > > > > > > PnP is an infrastructure facility used by drivers to detect and > > > configure hardware. The side-effect you were relying on was that the > > > old code would indiscriminately configure any and all PnP hardware > > > regardless of whether a driver had requested it to. > > > > Why is this not desirable? > > I've already asked you to do your own research, and I meant it. The > simple answer is "if we don't have a [working] driver for it, we don't > want it". But we do have a working driver for the AWE64. Or rather, it worked fine before the new PnP code was comitted, now it doesn't. It seems to me that this indicates a deficiency in the new PnP code. Isn't that correct? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message