Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 22:29:33 +0000 From: "Pokala, Ravi" <rpokala@panasas.com> To: "d@delphij.net" <d@delphij.net>, "freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org" <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Quick question: sc(4) vs vt(4) Message-ID: <D20CC5FC.143F88%rpokala@panasas.com> In-Reply-To: <55E77692.4050709@delphij.net> References: <D20CC2A1.143F43%rpokala@panasas.com> <55E77692.4050709@delphij.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-----Original Message----- From: Xin Li <delphij@delphij.net> Organization: The FreeBSD Project Reply-To: <d@delphij.net> Date: 2015-09-02, Wednesday at 15:22 To: Ravi Pokala <rpokala@panasas.com>, "freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org" <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Quick question: sc(4) vs vt(4) >On 09/02/15 15:13, Pokala, Ravi wrote: >>... >>=20 >>=20 >> Are there any known problems using vt(4) rather than sc(4) on systems >>booting with BIOS? One of our folks noticed that sc(4) has a bunch of >>dependencies, a bunch of which that are for obsolete hardware (AT >>keyboards and their controllers, splash screens, etc), that vt(4) does >>not. > >I don't expect any problems with it used in systems that uses BIOS. In >fact, one would have to use vt if they want to use DRM2, and I personally >used it for quite some time on my Lenovo T530, and there isn't any glitch >related to vt(4) in the past year that I can remember. Thanks Xin. A few folks chimed in on #bsdcode and said the same thing. -Ravi >Cheers, >--=20 >Xin LI <delphij@delphij.net> https://www.delphij.net/ >FreeBSD - The Power to Serve! Live free or die
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?D20CC5FC.143F88%rpokala>