Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 08:40:53 -0800 From: Marcel Moolenaar <xcllnt@mac.com> To: rea-fbsd@codelabs.ru Cc: Boris Samorodov <bsam@ipt.ru>, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Timeda 8-multiport adapter: only 2 ports available Message-ID: <A15C478D-B22F-4F5B-B584-F6D9BE368D55@mac.com> In-Reply-To: <u86IhinAe98poBxKoJlfe3b/pNw@TT2a40bhZF2dUby2PPEihZ1bSVY> References: <92804393@bb.ipt.ru> <26722819@bb.ipt.ru> <dgryeQY4GEVsW/%2Bo7hiHda0rsyw@Nv45r0f9gWT8HCu35qu0Xm2Zg98> <26719629@bb.ipt.ru> <19F75E66-0535-4982-9726-E2C0A03117EA@mac.com> <u86IhinAe98poBxKoJlfe3b/pNw@TT2a40bhZF2dUby2PPEihZ1bSVY>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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@mac.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?A15C478D-B22F-4F5B-B584-F6D9BE368D55>