From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jan 26 21:48:43 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61DD616A7C0 for ; Mon, 26 Jan 2004 21:48:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from harmony.village.org (rover.bsdimp.com [204.144.255.66]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34ECF43EC3 for ; Mon, 26 Jan 2004 19:40:52 -0800 (PST) (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 i0R3QfET085891; Mon, 26 Jan 2004 20:26:41 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 20:26:28 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <20040126.202628.39465078.imp@bsdimp.com> To: nate@root.org From: "M. Warner Losh" In-Reply-To: <20040126191657.B31071@root.org> References: <20040126165523.W30461@root.org> <20040126.181720.15264443.imp@bsdimp.com> <20040126191657.B31071@root.org> 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: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: newbus ioport usage X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 05:48:44 -0000 In message: <20040126191657.B31071@root.org> Nate Lawson writes: : On Mon, 26 Jan 2004, M. Warner Losh wrote: : > In message: <20040126165523.W30461@root.org> : > Nate Lawson 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