com1 incorrectly associated with ttyd1, com2 with ttyd0

[Joe Rhett]

> On Friday 16 December 2005 01:36 am, Joe Rhett wrote:
> > Well, this is where what the BIOS "says" and what the user is led to
> > expect, are different that what you are arguing for.  And on top of that,
> > every major OS except for FreeBSD does the right thing (acts like it isn't
> > there)
> >
> > Isn't it fairly obvious that no resources setup for a peripheral means
> > "disabled in BIOS" and it would be best to ignore that resource?

On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 11:25:19AM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
> No.  You would understand that if you had actually read my earlier e-mails.  

I did, but out of order of this reply.  Sorry.

> If you set PnP OS to yes, then the BIOS is free to not enable any devices not 
> needed for booting.  Thus, even if you didn't have COM1 disabled if it didn't 
> need COM1 to boot and you had PnP OS set to yes, it could not assign any 
> resources to COM1 and require the OS to set the resources.  There isn't any 
> way for the OS to know if you disabled the device, or if you used PnP OS and 
> the BIOS didn't configure that device _even_ _though_ _it_ _is_ _enabled_ 
> _in_ _the_ _BIOS_ _setup_ because it didn't feel like it.
 
Are you saying that changing PNP to "No" would make it easier for FreeBSD?
Are there any disadvantages to this?

-- 
Jo Rhett
senior geek
SVcolo : Silicon Valley Colocation