Subject: Re: wsdisplay, early consoles etc.
To: Michael Lorenz <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Bill Studenmund <email@example.com>
Date: 11/05/2006 09:32:59
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Sat, Nov 04, 2006 at 01:54:02PM -0500, Michael Lorenz wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> On Oct 26, 2006, at 13:36, Michael Lorenz wrote:
> >Besides that - we should come up with a generic interface to let a=20
> >driver find out if it's supposed to become the system console or not.=20
> >On OpenFirmware machines that's easy - just check /choosen/stdout -=20
> >but it's ugly to have OF-dependencies in drivers that reside in=20
> >sys/dev/pci. Maybe we should just have the MD autoconf code attach=20
> >properties for:
> >- - console
> >- - display mode
> >- - font
> >- - whatever I can't think of right now
> I guess no protest means no objections?
For some reason, I'm having a negative reaction to the use of "overwrite".=
And I'm not sure if it's really a problem or not.
I think I like the idea of being able to use a simple console driver then=
update to a more sophisiticated one once we know the hardware. And I like=
the idea about MI console description.
So let me try this question. Why should the console be updated only once?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (NetBSD)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----