On Jul 31, 12:21pm, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
} On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 04:37:36PM +0100, Quentin Garnier wrote:
} > On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 01:25:28PM +0100, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
} > > On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 12:21:49PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
} > > > On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 10:54:53AM +0000, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
} > > > > 
} > > > > Module Name:	src
} > > > > Committed By:	bouyer
} > > > > Date:		Sat Mar 10 10:54:53 UTC 2007
} > > > > 
} > > > > Modified Files:
} > > > > 	src/sys/arch/i386/conf: GENERIC
} > > > > 
} > > > > Log Message:
} > > > > Comment out 'fdc* at acpi?'
} > > > 
} > > > maybe 'fdc0 at acpi' would be better ?
} > > 
} > > wouldn't it conflict with fdc0 at isa ?
} > 
} > No.  If fdc0 at acpi attaches, then fdc0 at isa will not even be probed.
} 
} So it's probably a good solution. But I won't be able to look at this before
} 2 weeks; if someone else can test and commit please do !

     I've tested the following combinations:

fdc* at acpi?
fdc0 at isa?
- results in fdc1 at acpi

# fdc0 at acpi?
fdc0 at isa?
- results in fdc0 at isa

fdc0 at acpi?
fdc0 at isa?
- results in fdc0 at acpi

fdc0 at acpi?
fdc* at acpi?
fdc0 at isa?
- results in fdc0 at acpi

fdc* at acpi?
fdc* at isa?
- results in fdc0 at acpi

Which one would be the best option?

}-- End of excerpt from Manuel Bouyer