com1 incorrectly associated with ttyd1, com2 with ttyd0

[John Baldwin]

On Saturday 17 December 2005 04:51 pm, Joe Rhett wrote:
> > 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?

FreeBSD doesn't support having PnP OS set to Yes actually, it still requires 
No.  We've been getting closer to working with it set to Yes, but I don't 
think we are all the way there.

-- 
John Baldwin <jhb at FreeBSD.org>  <><  http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/
"Power Users Use the Power to Serve"  =  http://www.FreeBSD.org