Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 20:26:28 -0700 (MST) From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> To: nate@root.org Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: newbus ioport usage Message-ID: <20040126.202628.39465078.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <20040126191657.B31071@root.org> References: <20040126165523.W30461@root.org> <20040126.181720.15264443.imp@bsdimp.com> <20040126191657.B31071@root.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message: <20040126191657.B31071@root.org>
Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> writes:
: On Mon, 26 Jan 2004, M. Warner Losh wrote:
: > In message: <20040126165523.W30461@root.org>
: > Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> writes:
: > : Ok, I'm doing the set/alloc and it works. However, one weird thing. If I
: > : allocate all ports at boot time, it succeeds. My driver goes through
: > : multiple release/allocate cycles and it all works as expected. However if
: > : I boot and attach to only one of the registers, subsequent attempts to
: > : attach the second one fail. The resources are 2 IO ports, 0x101c and
: > : 0x101d. Both are 1 byte.
: >
: > Deos devinfo -r show any cause for the problem? Maybe you aren't
: > releasing them properly? Also, why not allocate them as a block of 2?
:
: Ok, I've found what's going on. Apparently my acpi_sysresource0
: pseudo-device is claiming all resources in its _CRS method. If I don't
: boot with 0x101c and 0x101d attached, it attaches to 0x1010-0x109d. But
: if I boot attaching them, it reserves less of the range.
:
: acpi_cpu0
: I/O ports:
: 0x101c
: 0x101d
:
: acpi_sysresource0
: I/O ports:
: 0x10-0x1f
: 0x24-0x25
: 0x28-0x29
: 0x2c-0x2d
: 0x2e-0x2f
: 0x30-0x31
: 0x34-0x35
: 0x38-0x39
: 0x3c-0x3d
: 0x50-0x53
: 0x72-0x77
: 0x90-0x9f
: 0xa4-0xa5
: 0xa8-0xa9
: 0xac-0xad
: 0xb0-0xb5
: 0xb8-0xb9
: 0xbc-0xbd
: 0x101e-0x109d
: 0x1180-0x11bf
: 0x15e0-0x15ef
: 0x1600-0x167f
:
: I'm not sure of a way around this. All ASL I've seen keeps these
: registers contiguous so I could whack out a block of 8 of them, although
: that doesn't seem correct. Perhaps acpi_cpu should be able to override
: the acpi_sysresource0 allocations, maybe by asking it for the resource if
: bus_resource_alloc returns NULL. Thoughts?
Have acpi bus own the resources that acpi_sysresource0 uses. Allow
children to get at parts of that as they see fit.
Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040126.202628.39465078.imp>