Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 22:07:56 +0000 From: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> Cc: tony@dell.com (Tony Overfield), wpaul@skynet.ctr.columbia.edu, chuckr@glue.umd.edu, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: PCI devices Message-ID: <199808262207.WAA00827@word.smith.net.au> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 26 Aug 1998 01:38:05 GMT." <199808260138.SAA29820@usr04.primenet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> A PnP OS follows the PnP specification, available from the Intel > and Microsoft sites, for free download (use "site search" and > look for "PnP specification"). > > A PnP OS is superior, since it will work on machines without a PnP > BIOS. This is a fallacious conclusion. An OS which meets the criteria for "PnP OS" in the preceeding discussion need not (and may not) work on a system without a PnP BIOS. As Tony pointed out, all the "PnP OS" setting does is determine whether the BIOS or the OS will perform resource allocation for devices that are not marked as being a potential boot path. > By default, PnP devices are required to be "disabled until enabled"; > the bsearch mechanism can be implemented once in the OS; after that, > it is no longer necessary to rely on the BIOS vendor "doing the right > thing". This is also not correct, as a PnP OS can only operate properly in a situation where resource availibility can be determined. In the PnP BIOS case, this can be obtained from the BIOS. Without a PnP (actually ESCD) BIOS, the OS must guess. -- \\ Sometimes you're ahead, \\ Mike Smith \\ sometimes you're behind. \\ mike@smith.net.au \\ The race is long, and in the \\ msmith@freebsd.org \\ end it's only with yourself. \\ msmith@cdrom.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199808262207.WAA00827>