From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Mar 10 15:43:52 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B4659F60; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 15:43:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bigwig.baldwin.cx (bigwig.baldwin.cx [IPv6:2001:470:1f11:75::1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8B7199AD; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 15:43:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from jhbbsd.localnet (unknown [209.249.190.124]) by bigwig.baldwin.cx (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D3814B926; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 11:43:48 -0400 (EDT) From: John Baldwin To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: option NEW_PCIB Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 09:45:20 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (FreeBSD/8.4-CBSD-20130906; KDE/4.5.5; amd64; ; ) References: <1394200335.1149.370.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> <58AB4C66-4267-414D-80D4-B97FF86A94A5@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <58AB4C66-4267-414D-80D4-B97FF86A94A5@bsdimp.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <201403100945.20298.jhb@freebsd.org> X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (bigwig.baldwin.cx); Mon, 10 Mar 2014 11:43:48 -0400 (EDT) Cc: freebsd-arm , Ian Lepore X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 15:43:52 -0000 On Friday, March 07, 2014 9:38:33 am Warner Losh wrote: >=20 > On Mar 7, 2014, at 6:52 AM, Ian Lepore wrote: >=20 > > Every architecture has "option NEW_PCIB" in its conf/DEFAULTS except arm > > and mips. Is that on purpose? What are the implications of adding it? > > Or maybe more importantly, what are the implications of it not being > > there? >=20 > This is John Baldwin=92s option for his reworked PCI bridge code. He did = that as > a fallback in case he really messed up something. It introduces renumberi= ng > of busses that don=92t already have numbers assigned. It should be enable= d on > ARM, but the required resource isn=92t defined on arm, and some of the ot= her > required glue doesn=92t seem to be implemented for arm yet, which is why = things > are the way they are at the moment. I think John intends for the option t= o go > away, and everything it covers will be =91standard=92. Yes. I just added a page on the wiki about NEW_PCIB explaining the changes each platform needs for it in a bit more detail on Friday: https://wiki.freebsd.org/NEW_PCIB I have posted patches in the past to arm@ to handle step 2 in the NEW_PCIB base requirements for arm@ but haven't been able to get folks to test them. I just recently made a new pass through sys/arm in a p4 tree to refresh thi= s. I haven't even compiled these yet, but you can find the patch here: http://people.freebsd.org/~jhb/patches/arm_activate2.patch I don't know how best to think about fixing i80321_pci to work with NEW_PCI= B. It has some hack that I don't fully understand. I think it uses an alternate mapping of the same resource range to use a different base address for the mapping. Longer term I think the bus_map_resource() think I suggest at the bottom is how to handle that, but even then there would still need to be a way to know which base address a given resource wanted to use. It may be that we need to implement that differently (bus-specific rman flag?) =2D-=20 John Baldwin