Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 12:05:46 -0800 From: Joe Rhett <jrhett@svcolo.com> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: hardware@FreeBSD.org, John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: com1 incorrectly associated with ttyd1, com2 with ttyd0 Message-ID: <20051205200546.GB13194@svcolo.com> In-Reply-To: <20051201204625.W41849@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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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? > 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) -- 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?20051205200546.GB13194>