From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Mar 19 17:08:32 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 954D616A4CE for ; Fri, 19 Mar 2004 17:08:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.mho.com (smtp.mho.net [64.58.4.5]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 57DE943D3F for ; Fri, 19 Mar 2004 17:08:32 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from scottl@freebsd.org) Received: (qmail 47225 invoked by uid 1002); 20 Mar 2004 01:08:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.4.1.17?) (64.58.1.252) by smtp.mho.net with SMTP; 20 Mar 2004 01:08:29 -0000 Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 18:12:33 -0700 (MST) From: Scott Long X-X-Sender: scottl@pooker.samsco.home To: Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?q?Sm=F8rgrav?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040319180056.A30715@pooker.samsco.home> References: <20040318132321.F9436@root.org> <44ekromwds.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> <20040319163324.X30715@pooker.samsco.home> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE cc: Lowell Gilbert cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: agp0 hang in 5.2.1-RELEASE X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 01:08:32 -0000 On Sat, 20 Mar 2004, Dag-Erling [iso-8859-1] Sm=F8rgrav wrote: > Scott Long writes: > > On Fri, 19 Mar 2004, Dag-Erling [iso-8859-1] Smrgrav wrote: > > > set hint.agp.0.disabled=3D"1" > > I don't see any code in the agp drivers to look at this hint. Is this > > impleneted some other way? > > Doesn't newbus automatically take care of that? > > DES No. This has been debated occasionally, but has some landmines. Newbus doesn't know what 'agp0' is until the probe bidding is complete. So you can really only disable the attach, not the probe. But what if the probe is destructive or buggy? You're then left to telling the parent of the device (usually a bus) to ignore the device. For PCI, this requires that the user know the bus, device, and function numbers. This is inconvenient, but not impossible. Unfortunately, this also means that every bus type might have different identifiers, and no one has come up with a mechanism yet that can be logically extended to these arbitrary bus types. Maybe handling the attach phase and ignoring the probe phase is good enough for now. Feel free to propose something =3D-) Scott