From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jun 22 15:24:21 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92E9E16A42B for ; Wed, 22 Jun 2005 15:24:21 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mv.twc.weather.com (mv.twc.weather.com [65.212.71.225]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A3AB43D48 for ; Wed, 22 Jun 2005 15:24:21 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from [10.50.41.231] (Not Verified[65.202.103.25]) by mv.twc.weather.com with NetIQ MailMarshal (v6, 0, 3, 8) id ; Wed, 22 Jun 2005 11:37:51 -0400 From: John Baldwin To: Emanuel Strobl Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 10:59:16 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.8 References: <200506101356.50355@harrymail> <200506211541.43452.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <200506220117.09044@harrymail> In-Reply-To: <200506220117.09044@harrymail> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-6" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200506221059.17834.jhb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: device sio vs. device uart X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 15:24:21 -0000 On Tuesday 21 June 2005 07:16 pm, Emanuel Strobl wrote: > Am Dienstag, 21. Juni 2005 21:41 schrieb John Baldwin: > > On Friday 10 June 2005 07:56 am, Emanuel Strobl wrote: > > > Originally I posted this to questions@ but got no answer so I'd like > > > to ask here: > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > after compiling a custom kernel with device uart instead of device sio > > > I see the following in my boot message: > > > sio0 failed to probe at port 0x3f8 irq 4 on isa0 > > > sio1 failed to probe at port 0x2f8 irq 3 on isa0 > > > sio2: not probed (disabled) > > > sio3: not probed (disabled) > > > > > > But I don't have sio in my kernel at all. > > > > > > Can someone please explain me the major differences (besides the > > > newbus adaption) between sio and uart? And why is sio still in > > > GENERIC? And of course why do I see these sio messages? > > > > > > Thanks in advance, > > > > I won't get into sio vs uart, but you will need to remove all of your > > 'sio' hints from device.hints to make the sio devices go away. > > oic, thanks. Surprisingly I couldn't collect uart information yet, I just > found out that I can't use uart for serial console (on i386), at least not > if all I do is to replace sio with uart in my kernel config. > Since I don't understand the code I have no idea why I would want to use > uart. Is it beneficial (on the i386 arch) to have a newbusified driver? sio(4) is new-bussed, too. uart(4) tends to be helpful in that it handles other types of uarts on non-x86 that sio(4) doesn't support. -- John Baldwin <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve" = http://www.FreeBSD.org