Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 06:49:01 +0100 (MET) From: J Wunsch <j@uriah.heep.sax.de> To: msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au (Michael Smith) Cc: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de, pgiffuni@fps.biblos.unal.edu.co, freebsd-bugs@freefall.freebsd.org, msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au Subject: Re: conf/2130: Installation bug Message-ID: <199612020549.GAA20707@uriah.heep.sax.de> In-Reply-To: <199612020123.LAA02100@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> from Michael Smith at "Dec 2, 96 11:53:10 am"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
As Michael Smith wrote:
> PCI devices should trigger this section of code :
>
> if (dev->iobase > 0)
> {
> sprintf(buf,"Port address : 0x%x",dev->iobase);
> putxy(1,18,buf);
> } else {
> if (dev->iobase == -2) /* a PCI device */
> putmsg(" PCI devices are automatically configured.");
> }
>
> in showparams().
They do.
> So is the request a change for this message, or a report that this
> message doesn't actually appear? (I'm building a new kernel for
> the only spammable system we currently have in the workshop, but
> I'm a bit distracted just at the moment. 8( )
Well, why do they appear in UserConfig in the first place, if you
can't do nothing with them? I thought it was intended that one can
change the flags?
Anyway, Pedro's (?) suggestion was to make it more obvious to the
innocent souls that PCI devices can and will be autoconfigured
reliably, so there's no need to mess with them.
--
cheers, J"org
joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ -- NIC: JW11-RIPE
Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199612020549.GAA20707>