From owner-freebsd-current  Tue Oct  1 02:34:26 1996
Return-Path: owner-current
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id CAA09893
          for current-outgoing; Tue, 1 Oct 1996 02:34:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id CAA09885;
          Tue, 1 Oct 1996 02:34:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.7.6/8.6.9) with ESMTP id CAA04210; Tue, 1 Oct 1996 02:34:14 -0700 (PDT)
To: Michael Smith <msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au>
cc: bde@freebsd.org, current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Your UserConfig changes for unmasking PCI devices... 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 01 Oct 1996 18:55:27 +0930."
             <199610010925.SAA10913@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> 
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 1996 02:34:14 -0700
Message-ID: <4208.844162454@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> I think (MHOO) that things were better when PCI devices weren't listed.
> I know I meant them to show up, but unless they get grouped seperately
> (ie. in a seperate class) you're right; people will get confused.

Even having the bus type displayed in the description string, perhaps
in a different text attribute, would be enough.  So you'd see:

bt0	Buslogic SCSI controller [PCI]
bt0	Buslogic SCSI controller [ISA/EISA/VLB]

And *only* if the machine in question even had a PCI bus.  I can't see
any reason to show the PCI entries on my 486/EISA test machine. :-)

					Jordan