From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Feb 23 21:44:45 2005 Return-Path: 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 F011916A4CF for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2005 21:44:44 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail25.sea5.speakeasy.net (mail25.sea5.speakeasy.net [69.17.117.27]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 848CF43D54 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2005 21:44:44 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 319 invoked from network); 23 Feb 2005 21:44:44 -0000 Received: from server.baldwin.cx ([216.27.160.63]) (envelope-sender )AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP for ; 23 Feb 2005 21:44:43 -0000 Received: from [10.50.40.202] (gw1.twc.weather.com [216.133.140.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by server.baldwin.cx (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j1NLibD5025453; Wed, 23 Feb 2005 16:44:38 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) From: John Baldwin To: Warner Losh Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 16:38:46 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2 References: <20050222.143230.41648746.imp@bsdimp.com> <200502231257.12798.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <20050223.135017.74708574.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <20050223.135017.74708574.imp@bsdimp.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200502231638.46128.jhb@FreeBSD.org> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.8 required=4.2 tests=ALL_TRUSTED, USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=failed version=3.0.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on server.baldwin.cx cc: arch@FreeBSD.org cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Better device probe values X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 21:44:45 -0000 On Wednesday 23 February 2005 03:50 pm, Warner Losh wrote: > > Several typos, but that's minor. Sounds ok to me. Note that I think > > BUS_PROBE_GENERIC might not really be enough though (PCI bridge drivers > > are actually somewhat tricky, on x86 for PCI-PCI you have ACPI, PCIBIOS, > > MPTable, and generic for example), but for more tricky cases we can still > > use numeric values. > > Well, on x86 we have 3 different pci busses, but they aren't in any > more complicated a heirarchy than 'generic' or something that replaces > 'generic.' You won't have PCIBIOS and MPTable fighting for control of > a system, will you? Yes, you do. MPTable is just preferred to PCIBIOS, and ACPI is preferred to PCIBIOS. MPTable probably should be preferred to ACPI though (since MPTable's probe is only going to succeed if we are using the MPTable to enumerate APICs, in which case we can't trust ACPI's interrupt routing) though I might have this one wrong. All three are preferred over the generic bridge driver. Actually, the ACPI vs. MPTable case is probably a bit more muddy than that. It's probably wrong now. We shouldn't ever use those two together, but I'm not sure how best to do that. I don't think that is currently an issue though because I don't know of any machines that include an MP Table and ACPI but don't include an MADT table in ACPI. -- John Baldwin <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve" = http://www.FreeBSD.org