From owner-freebsd-mobile@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Apr 21 22:16:19 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-mobile@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9388816A4CE for ; Wed, 21 Apr 2004 22:16:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from harmony.village.org (rover.bsdimp.com [204.144.255.66]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 218B943D4C for ; Wed, 21 Apr 2004 22:16:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from localhost (warner@rover2.village.org [10.0.0.1]) by harmony.village.org (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i3M5GIgr058920; Wed, 21 Apr 2004 23:16:18 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 23:16:23 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <20040421.231623.128865137.imp@bsdimp.com> To: marcov@stack.nl From: "M. Warner Losh" In-Reply-To: <20040421202556.AC9178A@toad.stack.nl> References: <20040421.035641.105105735.imp@bsdimp.com> <20040421202556.AC9178A@toad.stack.nl> X-Mailer: Mew version 3.3 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: freebsd-mobile@freebsd.org Subject: Re: unsupported io range problem X-BeenThere: freebsd-mobile@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile computing with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 05:16:19 -0000 In message: <20040421202556.AC9178A@toad.stack.nl> marcov@stack.nl (Marco van de Voort) writes: : > In message: <20040420164920.24EE2D7@toad.stack.nl> : > marcov@stack.nl (Marco van de Voort) writes: : : > >Could it be related to the fact that these devises are attached to bus : > >PCI1 ? : > : > It is related to the fact that the pci bridge really passes all : > addresses back upstream, rather than the addresses listed in the pci : > bridge registers. newer versions handle this correctly, completely : > eliminating the allow_unsupported_io_ranage option. You should try a : > number higher than 0x20000000 since that's kind of low... : : I tried a lot of values 0x2.., 0x4.., 0x6.., 0x8.., 0xe.... : : all the same result. Are you suggesting I'd have to update to a -current : kernel? I'm suggesting that you might have to. I'd checkout a separate 5.3-current tree, and installing with KERNEL=current so that it goes into /boot/current in case there are major issues. At the 'ok' prompts, you'll need to type 'unload' and then 'boot current'. Warner