On Tuesday 21 June 2005 07:16 pm, Emanuel Strobl wrote: > Am Dienstag, 21. Juni 2005 21:41 schrieb John Baldwin: > > On Friday 10 June 2005 07:56 am, Emanuel Strobl wrote: > > > Originally I posted this to questions_at_ but got no answer so I'd like > > > to ask here: > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > after compiling a custom kernel with device uart instead of device sio > > > I see the following in my boot message: > > > sio0 failed to probe at port 0x3f8 irq 4 on isa0 > > > sio1 failed to probe at port 0x2f8 irq 3 on isa0 > > > sio2: not probed (disabled) > > > sio3: not probed (disabled) > > > > > > But I don't have sio in my kernel at all. > > > > > > Can someone please explain me the major differences (besides the > > > newbus adaption) between sio and uart? And why is sio still in > > > GENERIC? And of course why do I see these sio messages? > > > > > > Thanks in advance, > > > > I won't get into sio vs uart, but you will need to remove all of your > > 'sio' hints from device.hints to make the sio devices go away. > > oic, thanks. Surprisingly I couldn't collect uart information yet, I just > found out that I can't use uart for serial console (on i386), at least not > if all I do is to replace sio with uart in my kernel config. > Since I don't understand the code I have no idea why I would want to use > uart. Is it beneficial (on the i386 arch) to have a newbusified driver? sio(4) is new-bussed, too. uart(4) tends to be helpful in that it handles other types of uarts on non-x86 that sio(4) doesn't support. -- John Baldwin <jhb_at_FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve" = http://www.FreeBSD.orgReceived on Wed Jun 22 2005 - 13:24:21 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:37 UTC