Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 12:07:09 -0800 From: Joe Rhett <jrhett@svcolo.com> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Subject: Re: com1 incorrectly associated with ttyd1, com2 with ttyd0 Message-ID: <20051205200709.GC13194@svcolo.com> In-Reply-To: <200512011153.50287.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <20051117050336.GB67653@svcolo.com> <20051117220358.GA65127@svcolo.com> <20051130181757.GA29686@svcolo.com> <200512011153.50287.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 11:53:49AM -0500, John Baldwin wrote: > No, it is reading it right. When you disable a device in ACPI it merely > doesn't assign resources to it. The OS can assign resources to it on its own > though and re-enable the device. FreeBSD currently doesn't implement enough > to get that right though. So what's involved in simply having it say Found <device>: disabled in BIOS instead of half a dozen complaints for each disabled device? -- Joe Rhett senior geek SVcolo : Silicon Valley Colocation
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20051205200709.GC13194>