From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jun 24 16:16:49 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-src@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D83D16A4CE; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 16:16:49 +0000 (GMT) Received: from pittgoth.com (14.zlnp1.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.149.111]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EED543D58; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 16:16:49 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from trhodes@FreeBSD.org) Received: from localhost.pittgoth.com (acs-24-154-239-234.zoominternet.net [24.154.239.234]) (authenticated bits=0) by pittgoth.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5OGGgwA042699 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 24 Jun 2004 12:16:43 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from trhodes@FreeBSD.org) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 12:17:13 -0400 From: Tom Rhodes To: "David E. O'Brien" Message-Id: <20040624121713.1ec767d6@localhost.pittgoth.com> In-Reply-To: <200406240257.i5O2vCoF029513@repoman.freebsd.org> References: <200406240257.i5O2vCoF029513@repoman.freebsd.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.11claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd5.2) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/sparc64/conf NOTES src/sys/conf options.sparc64 src/sys/dev/ofw ofw_console.c X-BeenThere: cvs-src@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 16:16:49 -0000 On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 02:57:12 +0000 (UTC) "David E. O'Brien" wrote: > obrien 2004-06-24 02:57:12 UTC > > FreeBSD src repository > > Modified files: > sys/sparc64/conf NOTES > sys/conf options.sparc64 > sys/dev/ofw ofw_console.c > Log: > Better OFW console support on Sun Ultra2 machines. > Ultra2 users may want to set OFWCONS_POLL_HZ to a value of '20'. > I have left default value at '4' as higher values can consume a more > than is acceptable amount of CPU, and we don't have a consensus yet > what is an optimal value. > Thanks! -- Tom Rhodes