From owner-freebsd-current Thu May 28 11:12:56 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA21576 for freebsd-current-outgoing; Thu, 28 May 1998 11:12:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from mail.camalott.com (root@mail.camalott.com [208.203.140.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA21571 for ; Thu, 28 May 1998 11:12:53 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from piquan@wcc.net) Received: from detlev.UUCP (tex-135.camalott.com [208.229.74.135] (may be forged)) by mail.camalott.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA11462; Thu, 28 May 1998 13:11:00 -0500 Received: (from joelh@localhost) by detlev.UUCP (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA01183; Thu, 28 May 1998 13:12:16 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from joelh) Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 13:12:16 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199805281812.NAA01183@detlev.UUCP> To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: sio0 flag 0x20000 From: Joel Ray Holveck Reply-to: joelh@gnu.org Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Is sio0 flag 0x20000 (enable 16550A features) in proper functioning order? I enabled it on a whim, and got strange effects in ppp (ie, login works fine, but during LQR negotiations, the other side doesn't see config-req or config-ack). Disabled it in bootconfig, and all is well. The probe reports the chip as a 16550A... is that reliable? Happy hacking, joelh -- Joel Ray Holveck - joelh@gnu.org - http://www.wp.com/piquan Fourth law of programming: Anything that can go wrong wi sendmail: segmentation violation - core dumped To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message