Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 12:20:07 -0500 (EST) From: ADRIAN Filipi-Martin <adrian@ubergeeks.com> To: Robert Nordier <rnordier@nordier.com> Cc: Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@cs.duke.edu>, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: /boot/loader & comconsole Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.981119121358.4776C-100000@lorax.ubergeeks.com> In-Reply-To: <199811190902.LAA03790@ceia.nordier.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, Robert Nordier wrote: > One difference between boot loader and the old/new boot blocks, is > that boot loader uses PC BIOS services (int 0x14) for comms; both > lots of boot blocks do direct port I/O, instead. > > The trouble with using the BIOS is that the int 0x14 services (which > tend to be used only to talk to serial printers under DOS) expect to > do hardware handshaking. > > They therefore impose fussier cabling requirements than the boot > blocks or the kernel have. (They don't work with the sloppy 2-wire, > 9-pin null modem cables I have here, for instance.) Ugh... I just discovered tis this morning all by myself. Now that I have six rack mounted machines with serial consoles, I can only reboot them one at a time, because I only have one terminal. I peeked at the code for a second and quickly realized I don't have the necessary docs. Is there any chance of doing away with this limitation? If necessary, I guess I could just wire the CTS/RTS/whatever pins together so it will boot unattended, but that's... uh.. suboptimal. I guess you could call it a null-terminal cable? Adrian -- [ adrian@ubergeeks.com -- Ubergeeks Consulting -- http://www.ubergeeks.com/ ] To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.981119121358.4776C-100000>