Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 06:57:00 +0300 (MSK) From: =?KOI8-R?B?4c7E0sXKIP7F0s7P1w==?= <ache@nagual.pp.ru> To: Luigi Rizzo <luigi@labinfo.iet.unipi.it> Cc: dstenn@fanfic.org, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: PnP code (was: Re: SB AWE64 support) Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.971208065257.222A-100000@ache.relcom.ru> In-Reply-To: <199712061037.LAA25626@labinfo.iet.unipi.it>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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 <ache@nietzsche.net> http://www.nagual.pp.ru/~ache/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.971208065257.222A-100000>