From owner-cvs-all Thu Jan 17 9:52:15 2002 Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (rwcrmhc51.attbi.com [204.127.198.38]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D93D37B41A; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 09:52:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from bmah.dyndns.org ([12.233.149.189]) by rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020117175207.CUQU5944.rwcrmhc51.attbi.com@bmah.dyndns.org>; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 17:52:07 +0000 Received: (from bmah@localhost) by bmah.dyndns.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g0HHq6s32212; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 09:52:06 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from bmah) Message-Id: <200201171752.g0HHq6s32212@bmah.dyndns.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: "M. Warner Losh" Cc: bmah@FreeBSD.org, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, oberman@es.net Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/dev/sio sio.c In-reply-to: <20020117.100717.76575563.imp@village.org> References: <200201171616.g0HGGqn13750@freefall.freebsd.org> <200201171649.g0HGnOD23179@bmah.dyndns.org> <20020117.100717.76575563.imp@village.org> Comments: In-reply-to "M. Warner Losh" message dated "Thu, 17 Jan 2002 10:07:17 -0700." From: bmah@FreeBSD.org (Bruce A. Mah) Reply-To: bmah@FreeBSD.org X-Face: g~c`.{#4q0"(V*b#g[i~rXgm*w;:nMfz%_RZLma)UgGN&=j`5vXoU^@n5v4:OO)c["!w)nD/!!~e4Sj7LiT'6*wZ83454H""lb{CC%T37O!!'S$S&D}sem7I[A 2V%N&+ X-Image-Url: http://www.employees.org/~bmah/Images/bmah-cisco-small.gif X-Url: http://www.employees.org/~bmah/ Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 09:52:06 -0800 Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG If memory serves me right, "M. Warner Losh" wrote: > : It's a support issue. I don't object real strongly to backing out the > : "port may be disabled" message but the way that the sio probe claimed a > : disabled port was really an 8250 was pretty bogus and has bitten a bunch > : of people (me included). So I think that some form of the second hunk > : of the patch should stay in. > > That part of the patch I have no problems with (it is correct, and the > only slight bogon in it is that maybe the the hardware is at that > address, but not a UART at all :-). It is the part that says that it > may be disabled in the BIOS. That's only one of a long list of > reasons... The SIO driver is used on non-intel hardware, and some of > that hardware doesn't even have a BIOS in the traditional intel sense > :-) > > Like I said, it was the wording of the message.... OK, sounds good. When I get around to it (later today), I'll change it to just say "port may be disabled" (full stop). This time I'll pay attention to the dmesg output too. :-) Thanks, Bruce. PS. sheldonh...I don't think this particularly elementary advice, but I agree that having some more notes in the sio(4) manpage would be good. Even the new "8250 or not responding" message is a bit cryptic and, like you pointed out, there's a nice DIAGNOSTICS section for just this sort of thing. I'll put it on my work queue. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message