From owner-freebsd-current Sun Dec 7 19:59:15 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA24838 for current-outgoing; Sun, 7 Dec 1997 19:59:15 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current) Received: from ache.relcom.ru (ache.relcom.ru [193.125.20.108]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA24828 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 1997 19:59:07 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from ache@ache.relcom.ru) Received: (from ache@localhost) by ache.relcom.ru (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA00228; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 06:57:04 +0300 (MSK) (envelope-from ache) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 06:57:00 +0300 (MSK) From: =?KOI8-R?B?4c7E0sXKIP7F0s7P1w==?= X-Sender: ache@ache.relcom.ru To: Luigi Rizzo cc: dstenn@fanfic.org, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: PnP code (was: Re: SB AWE64 support) In-Reply-To: <199712061037.LAA25626@labinfo.iet.unipi.it> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Sat, 6 Dec 1997, Luigi Rizzo wrote: > BUT: if you want the kernel to override and PnP configuration set (or > not set) by the bios, which is what "os enable" does, that should never > happen, at least not in the driver. Hmm, why not? I.e. if pnp code sees awe0 at 0x620 in configuration file, why not "os enable" other 2 ports automatically? What is some possible bad effects I overlook? > We can write extensive documentation on how to use the _manual_ > PnP configuration features, perhaps imrove the user interface so > one does not have to use criptic numbers but more significant names, > but that's about it. I think this awe hack should be mentioned at least in some visible place like LINT... -- Andrey A. Chernov http://www.nagual.pp.ru/~ache/