Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 07:47:39 -0400
From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>
To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Cc: Alexander Best <arundel@freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: {arch}/conf/DEFAULTS and uart
Message-ID: <201009100747.39964.jhb@freebsd.org>
In-Reply-To: <20100909195045.GA68352@freebsd.org>
References: <20100909191750.GA58228@freebsd.org> <20100909194109.GA64914@freebsd.org> <20100909195045.GA68352@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thursday, September 09, 2010 3:50:45 pm Alexander Best wrote: > On Thu Sep 9 10, Alexander Best wrote: > > On Thu Sep 9 10, Alexander Best wrote: > > > hi there, > > > > > > except for arm most archs seem to enforce uart support in conf/DEFAULTS. is > > > this really necessary? shouldn't DEFAULTS only contain vital devices/options > > > without a kernel on a specific arch won't function at all? > > > > jhb just explained to me, that the uart entry in DEFAULTS is not a controller > > or something like that, but the uart backend to use *if* uart gets defined in > > the kernel config. > > > > sorry for the noise folks. > > however i found some missing comments and incorrect syntax which i fixed. > > see the attached patch. I think the ia64 ordering for 'io and mem' is probably more correct (alphabetically sorted), so I would fix i386 and amd64 and leave ia64 alone. The powerpc 'machine' changes are wrong I think as it would break GENERIC64 and powerpc64 kernel configs in general. Nathan purposefully removed 'machine' from the powerpc DEFAULTS. -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201009100747.39964.jhb>