From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Sep 29 19:20:25 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB1C816A4D0 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 2004 19:20:24 +0000 (GMT) Received: from intelli7.com (host350.jtan.com [207.106.6.174]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 800DC43D62 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 2004 19:20:22 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from bcg@intelli7.com) Received: from [192.168.0.2] (unknown [65.222.158.88]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by intelli7.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 460567DC86A; Wed, 29 Sep 2004 15:24:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Brenden Grace To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <415AF2D0.7090002@pantasys.com> References: <1096476707.2670.1088.camel@localhost.localdomain> <415AF2D0.7090002@pantasys.com> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1096485467.2670.1127.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6 (1.4.6-2) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 15:17:47 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: Peter Buckingham Subject: Re: Device probe issue with an em(4) compatible device X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 19:20:25 -0000 On Wed, 2004-09-29 at 13:37, Peter Buckingham wrote: > why compile the em driver in at all? it won't probe the device if it > doesn't exist ;-) because I need it ... > otherwise, just add some code to the em's probe routine to check for > your subvendor, subdevice pair and exit without attaching. Well sure (though ugly), but I think having it just return a negative number would be a better fix than that. I was more interested in why the em driver (and others) returns 0 and ends the probing of a device that it could possibly only partially support (based on its matching of PCI_ANY_ID). If I understand DEVICE_PROBE(9) correctly it seems that the whole reason for the negative return scale is to avoid this very issue. -- Brenden C. Grace Intelli7