Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 14:36:34 +0300 From: Artemiev Igor <ai@bmc.brk.ru> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] nForce2 SMBus support Message-ID: <20051209143634.09bc2d90.ai@bmc.brk.ru> In-Reply-To: <200512080951.52387.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <20051206093020.691e1483.ai@bmc.brk.ru> <200512070816.46165.jhb@freebsd.org> <20051208090835.471a5584.ai@bmc.brk.ru> <200512080951.52387.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 09:51:51 -0500 John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> wrote: > > I simply do not see any way to do it with current implementation of > > ampdm(and also viapm, etc) & smbus, without modifying the smb- > > >smbus->smbus driver interface. I may be wrong, but as far as I > > >know, currently it's one > > smb for one driver (smbus_* limitation) > > Hmm, it doesn't specify the child device, just the parent. *sigh* > That's lame. You don't have to call it amdpmsub0 btw, you could just > call it amdpm1 if you wanted and have amdpm1 a child of amdpm0. All > that would need to change for that is the NF2_SUBDEV string and the > DRIVER_MODULE line (it would be DRIVER_MODULE(amdpm, amdpm, ...)). > This has the added advantage that you don't have to patch smbus.c. I remade it as you described - can't understand, why I didn't think about it myself -- iprefetch ai
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20051209143634.09bc2d90.ai>