Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 02:48:38 +1000 (EST) From: Ian Smith <smithi@nimnet.asn.au> To: Andriy Gapon <avg@icyb.net.ua> Cc: FreeBSD Stable <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: sio => uart: one port is gone Message-ID: <20080916021035.N439@sola.nimnet.asn.au> In-Reply-To: <48CE815A.9040907@icyb.net.ua> References: <48CE5E9B.9000304@icyb.net.ua> <20080916002823.E439@sola.nimnet.asn.au> <48CE815A.9040907@icyb.net.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 15 Sep 2008, Andriy Gapon wrote: > on 15/09/2008 17:36 Ian Smith said the following: > > On Mon, 15 Sep 2008, Andriy Gapon wrote: > > > This is a fairly standard and old machine with 2 COM ports. > > > Recently (last Friday) I decided to update my RELENG_7 system and also > > > to transition from sio to uart. > > > > This what I had before the upgrade: > > > kernel: sio0: <16550A-compatible COM port> port 0x3f8-0x3ff irq 4 flags > > > 0x10 on acpi0 > > > kernel: sio0: type 16550A > > > kernel: sio0: [FILTER] > > > kernel: sio1: <16550A-compatible COM port> port 0x2e8-0x2ef irq 3 on acpi0 > > > kernel: sio1: type 16550A > > > kernel: sio1: [FILTER] > > > > This is what I have now: > > > uart0: <16550 or compatible> at port 0x3f8-0x3ff irq 4 flags 0x10 on isa0 > > > uart0: [FILTER] > > > > This is what I have in device.hints for uart: > > > hint.uart.0.at="isa" > > > hint.uart.0.port="0x3F8" > > > hint.uart.0.flags="0x10" > > > hint.uart.0.irq="4" > > > hint.uart.1.at="isa" > > > hint.uart.1.port="0x2F8" > > > > but it's shown as 0x2e8 above .. > > > > > hint.uart.1.irq="3" > > > hint.uart.2.at="isa" > > > > Precisely the same hints (s/uart/sio/) I had for sio. > > > > 0x2f8 is 'standard COM2' address .. did sio1 work ok at 0x2e8 before? > thank you, I guess I had a typo in my hints, but the port did work. > Looking at the old dmesg I see that sio devices are found 'on acpi0' as > opposed to uart now being found on 'isa0'. > Maybe this is another difference. Does sound a bit odd; looks like the ACPI info trumped hints for sio. > Maybe sio was attached using some information from acpi, so hints were not > that important. But maybe the same acpi information is not applied to uart, > so it does depend on the hints. Sounds a reasonable theory .. so does fixing that hint find the UART? Maybe a verbose dmesg would provide more clues re uart's attachment? > If this guess is correct then this is a regression in sio=>uart transition, > if not, then I'll just correct my device.hints and shut up :-) Or both :) You'd think if ACPI info is available uart should use it, but then if it's attaching to the isa bus instead, maybe not .. hmm. cheers, Ian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080916021035.N439>