On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 09:08:23AM +0200, Marc Balmer wrote: > Am 03.09.11 18:30, schrieb David Laight: > > On Sat, Sep 03, 2011 at 05:04:16PM +0200, Manuel Bouyer wrote: > >>> > >>> I see. Does that mean it will push up ACPI com(4) ports up even when > >>> com0 - com2 don't attach? > >> > >> Yes, but maybe > >> com0 at acpi? > >> com1 at acpi? > >> com* at acpi? > >> > >> will workaround it. This needs to be tested. > > > > Look at the cvs history, if you do that the com ports tend to get > > reversed. > > There is no way of fixing the order of the com ports when acpi is used. > > Now the big question is: What is more important? Having _no_ com > ports, but in the right order, or having useable serial ports, but maybe > with a strange numbering?
There is certainly a way to get them in the right order; other systems manages to get it right ... -- Manuel Bouyer <[email protected]> NetBSD: 26 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference --
