On Dec 11, 2008, at 12:50 AM, Eygene Ryabinkin wrote: > Marcel, Boris, good day. > > Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 05:00:24PM -0800, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: >>> Seems that just the same card should work: >>> http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/2008-May/042505.html >>> >>> I've added some diagnistic. But 'rid' is not what you want, I guess: >> >> The RID is fine. It should always be 0. > > Seems like a dumb question, but nevertheless. > > What I don't understand is the following: BAR to port mapping for > the Timedia is tricky, it mixes BARs and offsets for the different > ports (you should know this, since you wrote the support ;)). Correct (on both accounts :-) > But in uart_bus_probe you're passing rid = 0 and it is used for > resource > allocation and consequently the same rid is used for all ports (at > least > I read the code in this way). But puc_get_bar() uses calculated rid > values, but does essentially the same thing: resource allocation via > bus_alloc_resource(). And sc->sc_bas is initialized from the obtained > sc->sc_rres (inside uart_bus_probe) and it is subsequently used for > ns8250_probe() that is failing. > > I see that uart_bus_pci.c calls uart_bus_probe() with the actual rid. > It does not mean that puc code should do the same, but ... It could have been done that way, but such is not necessary. It would not have been a problem for uart to do it, as can be seen from uart_bus_pci.c, but it would have introduced some complexity for sio(4). We needed to support sio(4) at that time and I didn't want to touch sio(4) at all. Since puc(4) needs to maintain a mapping from the child's device_t to some internal data structure, it was trivial to have the child use RID 0 in all cases and have that mapped to the right bus tag and handle pair... FYI, -- Marcel Moolenaar xcllnt_at_mac.comReceived on Thu Dec 11 2008 - 15:40:54 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:38 UTC