Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 09:45:43 -0700 From: Marcel Moolenaar <xcllnt@mac.com> To: Jeremy Chadwick <koitsu@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org, Stefan Lambrev <stefan.lambrev@sun-fish.com> Subject: Re: sio0: port may not be enabled Message-ID: <049954BE-364B-4897-87C3-342D0A824C00@mac.com> In-Reply-To: <20070420152329.GA16702@icarus.home.lan> References: <4628D63A.3050909@sun-fish.com> <20070420152329.GA16702@icarus.home.lan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Apr 20, 2007, at 8:23 AM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: > Look closely at the dmesg line, note what device sio0 is claiming =20 > to be > associated with (acpi0, not isa0): > >> sio0: <16550A-compatible COM port> port 0x3f8-0x3ff irq 4 flags =20 >> 0x10 on acpi0 > > This is one of the drawbacks to using ACPI. This is not a drawback. It's partly why ACPI was designed and =20 implemented: to describe legacy hardware. > Some systems apparently tie the serial port to ACPI functionality in a > different way. For example, I have a couple boxes which have sio0 > attached to acpi0 that work fine. In some other cases, I have ones > which result in a non-working serial port unless I disable ACPI (thus > sio0 shows up as being attached to isa0). Could you try uart(4) instead. It seems quite excessive to have to disable ACPI just to get a serial port working. I'd like to know if this is related to the sio(4) driver or something else. =04Thanks, --=20 Marcel Moolenaar xcllnt@mac.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?049954BE-364B-4897-87C3-342D0A824C00>