Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 22:36:54 -0800 From: Joe Rhett <jrhett@svcolo.com> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: hardware@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: com1 incorrectly associated with ttyd1, com2 with ttyd0 Message-ID: <20051216063654.GA49191@svcolo.com> In-Reply-To: <200512051522.41965.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <20051117050336.GB67653@svcolo.com> <20051201204625.W41849@delplex.bde.org> <20051205200546.GB13194@svcolo.com> <200512051522.41965.jhb@freebsd.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. > On Monday 05 December 2005 03:05 pm, Joe Rhett wrote: > > 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? On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 03:22:40PM -0500, John Baldwin wrote: > The BIOS doesn't say "X is disabled", it just doesn't have any resources setup > for X. Well, this is where what the BIOS "says" and what the user is led to expect, are different that what you are arguing for. And on top of that, every major OS except for FreeBSD does the right thing (acts like it isn't there) Isn't it fairly obvious that no resources setup for a peripheral means "disabled in BIOS" and it would be best to ignore that resource? -- Jo Rhett senior geek SVcolo : Silicon Valley Colocation
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20051216063654.GA49191>