Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 10:24:11 +0200 From: des@des.no (Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?q?Sm=F8rgrav?=) To: Jake Burkholder <jake@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/etc/etc.sparc64 ttys Message-ID: <xzpisnz68d0.fsf@dwp.des.no> In-Reply-To: <200309110014.h8B0EHOX044603@repoman.freebsd.org> (Jake Burkholder's message of "Wed, 10 Sep 2003 17:14:17 -0700 (PDT)") References: <200309110014.h8B0EHOX044603@repoman.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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? DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav - des@des.no
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?xzpisnz68d0.fsf>