From owner-freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 5 21:23:47 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hardware@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8101D16A422; Mon, 5 Dec 2005 21:23:47 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from speedfactory.net (mail6.speedfactory.net [66.23.216.219]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2199443D45; Mon, 5 Dec 2005 21:23:45 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from server.baldwin.cx (unverified [66.23.211.162]) by speedfactory.net (SurgeMail 3.5b3) with ESMTP id 3208972 for multiple; Mon, 05 Dec 2005 16:21:53 -0500 Received: from localhost (john@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by server.baldwin.cx (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id jB5LNZPv041669; Mon, 5 Dec 2005 16:23:38 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) From: John Baldwin To: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 15:22:40 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.2 References: <20051117050336.GB67653@svcolo.com> <20051201204625.W41849@delplex.bde.org> <20051205200546.GB13194@svcolo.com> In-Reply-To: <20051205200546.GB13194@svcolo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200512051522.41965.jhb@freebsd.org> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=4.2 tests=ALL_TRUSTED autolearn=failed version=3.0.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on server.baldwin.cx X-Server: High Performance Mail Server - http://surgemail.com r=1653887525 Cc: Joe Rhett , hardware@freebsd.org Subject: Re: com1 incorrectly associated with ttyd1, com2 with ttyd0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of FreeBSD hardware List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 21:23:47 -0000 On Monday 05 December 2005 03:05 pm, Joe Rhett wrote: > On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 08:58:04PM +1100, Bruce Evans wrote: > > It's not clear that disabling in the BIOS should disable for all OSes. > > What? That's a fairly weird interpretation. If I want to disable inside a > given OS, I do that inside the OS. If I want to disable for _ALL_ OSes, > then I disable in the BIOS. What reasonable logic can argue otherwise? The BIOS doesn't say "X is disabled", it just doesn't have any resources setup for X. One of the few things the BIOS can say "X is disabled" for is CPUs, which is what the Hyperthreading knob in the BIOS does, it just flags HT CPUs as disabled in the MADT table. -- John Baldwin <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve" = http://www.FreeBSD.org