Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 09:52:25 -0600 (MDT) From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> To: dfr@nlsystems.com Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: kobj multiple inheritance Message-ID: <20030922.095225.85015472.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <1064221837.15078.14.camel@herring.nlsystems.com> References: <1064221837.15078.14.camel@herring.nlsystems.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message: <1064221837.15078.14.camel@herring.nlsystems.com>
Doug Rabson <dfr@nlsystems.com> writes:
: This effectively allows all pci
: drivers to get into the cardbus probe. If a particular driver needs to
: treat its cardbus attachment specially, it can still do this by adding a
: special cardbus driver (e.g. with a cardbus specific probe or attach
: method) to the cardbus devclass (exactly as it does now).
So if there's devices that can only be "base" pci, and have issues
with all other types of pci-like buses, is there a way to say "only
on pci bus, but none of the derived buses"? Or is it better to list
those derived buses that are known to cause problems? I'd imagine
that these devices would be rare, but I've worked on one....
Also, we're violating the PC Card spec by not matching the CIS values,
but reading the vendor/device instead. Technically, this is a
violation and those registers aren't reqiured to be defined. So far,
nobody has showed up with devices that don't have them, but I thought
I'd point this out. It has been theorized that this is because so
many designs share silicon with PCI.
Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030922.095225.85015472.imp>