From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Jan 26 21:47:58 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93EB016A543
	for <arch@freebsd.org>; Mon, 26 Jan 2004 21:47:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from root.org (root.org [67.118.192.226])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1711044066
	for <arch@freebsd.org>; Mon, 26 Jan 2004 19:49:10 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from nate@root.org)
Received: (qmail 31137 invoked by uid 1000); 27 Jan 2004 03:22:30 -0000
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 19:22:30 -0800 (PST)
From: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org>
To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com>
In-Reply-To: <20040126.181720.15264443.imp@bsdimp.com>
Message-ID: <20040126191657.B31071@root.org>
References: <20040126140100.T29680@root.org>
	<20040126.151728.133912536.imp@bsdimp.com>
	<20040126.181720.15264443.imp@bsdimp.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: arch@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: newbus ioport usage
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture
	<freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 05:47:59 -0000

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> In message: <20040126165523.W30461@root.org>
>             Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> writes:
> : Ok, I'm doing the set/alloc and it works.  However, one weird thing.  If I
> : allocate all ports at boot time, it succeeds.  My driver goes through
> : multiple release/allocate cycles and it all works as expected.  However if
> : I boot and attach to only one of the registers, subsequent attempts to
> : attach the second one fail.  The resources are 2 IO ports, 0x101c and
> : 0x101d.  Both are 1 byte.
>
> Deos devinfo -r show any cause for the problem?  Maybe you aren't
> releasing them properly?  Also, why not allocate them as a block of 2?

Ok, I've found what's going on.  Apparently my acpi_sysresource0
pseudo-device is claiming all resources in its _CRS method.  If I don't
boot with 0x101c and 0x101d attached, it attaches to 0x1010-0x109d.  But
if I boot attaching them, it reserves less of the range.

    acpi_cpu0
        I/O ports:
            0x101c
            0x101d

    acpi_sysresource0
        I/O ports:
            0x10-0x1f
            0x24-0x25
            0x28-0x29
            0x2c-0x2d
            0x2e-0x2f
            0x30-0x31
            0x34-0x35
            0x38-0x39
            0x3c-0x3d
            0x50-0x53
            0x72-0x77
            0x90-0x9f
            0xa4-0xa5
            0xa8-0xa9
            0xac-0xad
            0xb0-0xb5
            0xb8-0xb9
            0xbc-0xbd
            0x101e-0x109d
            0x1180-0x11bf
            0x15e0-0x15ef
            0x1600-0x167f

I'm not sure of a way around this.  All ASL I've seen keeps these
registers contiguous so I could whack out a block of 8 of them, although
that doesn't seem correct.  Perhaps acpi_cpu should be able to override
the acpi_sysresource0 allocations, maybe by asking it for the resource if
bus_resource_alloc returns NULL.  Thoughts?

-Nate