Re: [PATCH] nForce2 SMBus support

From: John Baldwin <jhb_at_freebsd.org>
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 09:51:51 -0500
On Thursday 08 December 2005 01:08 am, Artemiev Igor wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 08:16:44 -0500
>
> John Baldwin <jhb_at_freebsd.org> wrote:
> > On Tuesday 06 December 2005 01:30 am, Artemiev Igor wrote:
> > > I add pseudo-device amdpmsub because nForce2 have two SMBus
> > > interfaces. Patch here:
> > >
> > > http://bmc.brk.ru/~ai/patches/amdpm.nforce2_support.diff
> > >
> > > dmesg output:
> > >
> > > amdpm0: <nForce2 MCP-T SMBus Controller> port
> > > 0xdc00-0xdc1f,0x5000-0x501f,0x5500 -0x551f irq 5 at device 1.1 on
> > > pci0 smbus0: <System Management Bus> on amdpm0
> > > smb0: <SMBus generic I/O> on smbus0
> > > amdpmsub0: <nForce2 MCP-T Slave SMBus Controller> on amdpm0
> > > smbus1: <System Management Bus> on amdpmsub0
> > > smb1: <SMBus generic I/O> on smbus1
> > >
> > > I`ve tested it with xmbmon and all works fine.
> >
> > Is there any reason you can't make smbus1 a childof amdpm0 directly
> > and skip the amdpmsub0 device?
>
> 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.

-- 
John Baldwin <jhb_at_FreeBSD.org>  <><  http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/
"Power Users Use the Power to Serve"  =  http://www.FreeBSD.org
Received on Thu Dec 08 2005 - 13:57:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:48 UTC