Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 10:44:17 -0700 From: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> To: Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav <des@des.no> Cc: Jake Burkholder <jake@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/etc/etc.sparc64 ttys Message-ID: <20030911174417.GB47739@ns1.xcllnt.net> In-Reply-To: <xzpisnz68d0.fsf@dwp.des.no> References: <200309110014.h8B0EHOX044603@repoman.freebsd.org> <xzpisnz68d0.fsf@dwp.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Sep 11, 2003 at 10:24:11AM +0200, Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav wrote: > Jake Burkholder <jake@FreeBSD.org> writes: > > Log: > > Changed the ttyd entries to ttyu, which correspond to the device nodes > > created by uart(4). > > Is there a good reason for uart to use ttyu instead of ttyd? There's > no risk of conflict even if both uart and sio are present, thanks to > devfs, so why not use the traditional name? The uart(4) driver creates a device node with its minor device number. This number is unique within a device class only. -- Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 marcel@xcllnt.net
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030911174417.GB47739>