From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Apr 21 11:49:58 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 099E716A403 for ; Sat, 21 Apr 2007 11:49:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from xfb52@dial.pipex.com) Received: from smtp-out4.blueyonder.co.uk (smtp-out4.blueyonder.co.uk [195.188.213.7]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD74813C4C1 for ; Sat, 21 Apr 2007 11:49:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from xfb52@dial.pipex.com) Received: from [172.23.170.140] (helo=anti-virus02-07) by smtp-out4.blueyonder.co.uk with smtp (Exim 4.52) id 1Hewrt-0000Az-9z; Fri, 20 Apr 2007 18:25:57 +0100 Received: from [62.31.10.181] (helo=[192.168.0.2]) by asmtp-out1.blueyonder.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1Hewrs-0001q7-GL; Fri, 20 Apr 2007 18:25:56 +0100 Message-ID: <4628F7A4.3060503@dial.pipex.com> Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 18:25:56 +0100 From: Alex Zbyslaw User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-GB; rv:1.7.13) Gecko/20061205 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org References: <4628D63A.3050909@sun-fish.com> <20070420152329.GA16702@icarus.home.lan> <049954BE-364B-4897-87C3-342D0A824C00@mac.com> In-Reply-To: <049954BE-364B-4897-87C3-342D0A824C00@mac.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Stefan Lambrev Subject: Re: sio0: port may not be enabled X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 11:49:58 -0000 Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > > On Apr 20, 2007, at 8:23 AM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: > >> Look closely at the dmesg line, note what device sio0 is claiming to be >> associated with (acpi0, not isa0): >> >>> sio0: <16550A-compatible COM port> port 0x3f8-0x3ff irq 4 flags >>> 0x10 on acpi0 >> >> >> This is one of the drawbacks to using ACPI. > > > Could you try uart(4) instead. It seems quite excessive to have to > disable ACPI just to get a serial port working. I'd like to know > if this is related to the sio(4) driver or something else. Just a note that I get exactly the same issues with my BIOS/ACPI but *my serial port works*. I have not needed to disable ACPI nor to use uart(4). The sio0 line has an IRQ associated with it (4) and I think if there were really a problem there would be no IRQ here. IIRC, the issue is something to do with ACPI presenting the serial ports backwards wrt the BIOS. I know I got concerned about this when I first encountered it, and tried stuff to swap the two ports I have over, but nothing I did made the initial "ACPI probed irqs" error go away so I just tried the serial port and it worked. --Alex