On Apr 23, 2013, at 4:33 AM, Steven Hartland wrote:
>>>
>>> If we can't reach an agreement, I'm happy to wrap the relevant bits with
>>> an "if (bootverbose)", but I really feel users should have some way to
>>> see this information outside of bootverbose.
>> Both da and ada drivers already hav
Your meta-commentary here is irritating.
They're called "quirks" because that is the named given to them in CAM>
Scott
On Apr 23, 2013, at 9:33 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> .. are we really debating this?
>
> Stop calling them quirks. That sounds like something that won't mess
> up your actual r
On Wed, 2013-04-24 at 11:59 -0700, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> I think this just outlines the problem - bootverbose is too verbose.
>
> eg, what the audio code outputs. And yes, net80211 when you're doing 11n.
>
I agree that the sound driver(s) output Too Much Stuff with bootverbose,
so much so that i
I think this just outlines the problem - bootverbose is too verbose.
eg, what the audio code outputs. And yes, net80211 when you're doing 11n.
Adrian
On 23 April 2013 23:15, Matthias Andree wrote:
> Am 23.04.2013 09:44, schrieb Alexander Motin:
>
>> Let me disagree. bootverbose keeps dmesg r
Am 23.04.2013 09:44, schrieb Alexander Motin:
> Let me disagree. bootverbose keeps dmesg readable for average user,
> while quirks are specific driver workarounds and their names may confuse
> more then really help. If every driver print its quirks, dmesg would be
> two times bigger. There is boot
