From owner-freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Dec 8 04:13:11 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-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 B0CE816A41F; Thu, 8 Dec 2005 04:13:11 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from bde@zeta.org.au) Received: from mailout1.pacific.net.au (mailout1.pacific.net.au [61.8.0.84]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FC7743D81; Thu, 8 Dec 2005 04:13:05 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from bde@zeta.org.au) Received: from mailproxy2.pacific.net.au (mailproxy2.pacific.net.au [61.8.0.87]) by mailout1.pacific.net.au (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3) with ESMTP id jB84D2sO024837; Thu, 8 Dec 2005 15:13:02 +1100 Received: from katana.zip.com.au (katana.zip.com.au [61.8.7.246]) by mailproxy2.pacific.net.au (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3) with ESMTP id jB84D0f1001637; Thu, 8 Dec 2005 15:13:01 +1100 Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 15:13:00 +1100 (EST) From: Bruce Evans X-X-Sender: bde@delplex.bde.org To: Joe Rhett In-Reply-To: <20051205200546.GB13194@svcolo.com> Message-ID: <20051208145124.C63825@delplex.bde.org> References: <20051117050336.GB67653@svcolo.com> <200511171030.36633.jhb@freebsd.org> <20051117220358.GA65127@svcolo.com> <20051130181757.GA29686@svcolo.com> <20051201204625.W41849@delplex.bde.org> <20051205200546.GB13194@svcolo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: hardware@FreeBSD.org, John Baldwin , freebsd-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: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 04:13:11 -0000 On Mon, 5 Dec 2005, 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 might not be layered under _all_ OSes, either due to its design or implementation, or OSes not understanding how to talk to the BIOS, or there being no way to talk BIOS. >> Don't know. I avoid ACPI if possible :-). I suspect that FreeBSD can see >> ACPI tables but not all BIOS tables, so any soft disabling in the BIOS gets >> lost. > > Can you really use everything without ACPI? What is lost by disabling ACPI? > Don't you lose power-down support at the least? > (I did look for a FAQ on ACPI and found darn little) It's system-dependent. ACPI is now essential for most portable computers. I don't have one , and lose only faster interrupt handing via the APIC on workstations. This is a small loss since the APIC is broken on 1/2 of my systems that have both ACPI and APIC so APIC cannot be configured on one, and the other one doesn't do much interrupt handling or benchmarks thereof so I don't care if it would have faster interrupt handling using APIC. Bruce