Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 22:43:00 -0800 From: Joe Rhett <jrhett@svcolo.com> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>, t@svcolo.com Cc: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Subject: Re: com1 incorrectly associated with ttyd1, com2 with ttyd0 Message-ID: <20051216064300.GC49191@svcolo.com> In-Reply-To: <200512051526.48117.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <20051117050336.GB67653@svcolo.com> <200512011153.50287.jhb@freebsd.org> <20051205200709.GC13194@svcolo.com> <200512051526.48117.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Monday 05 December 2005 03:07 pm, Joe Rhett wrote: > > So what's involved in simply having it say > > Found <device>: disabled in BIOS > > instead of half a dozen complaints for each disabled device? On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 03:26:47PM -0500, John Baldwin wrote: > There's no disabled flag. If you have PNP OS set to yes in your BIOS, it is > free to leave any devices not needed for booting unconfigured (like printer > ports, serial ports, etc.) and there is no way for the OS to know if the BIOS > didn't alloc resources because it is disabled or because the BIOS was just > lazy. If this is impossible to know, why do Windows and Linux both handle it properly? -- 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?20051216064300.GC49191>