From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 17 18:58:32 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA51E16A4CE; Thu, 17 Mar 2005 18:58:32 +0000 (GMT) Received: from canning.wemm.org (canning.wemm.org [192.203.228.65]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6918143D46; Thu, 17 Mar 2005 18:58:32 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from peter@wemm.org) Received: from fw.wemm.org (canning.wemm.org [192.203.228.65]) by canning.wemm.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4151B2A8F3; Thu, 17 Mar 2005 10:58:32 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from peter@wemm.org) Received: from peter-laptop.wemm.org (dhcp49.wemm.org [10.0.0.49]) by fw.wemm.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF5B2E2B3; Thu, 17 Mar 2005 10:58:30 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from peter@wemm.org) Received: from peter-laptop.wemm.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by peter-laptop.wemm.org (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j2HIwADW004091; Thu, 17 Mar 2005 10:58:10 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from peter@wemm.org) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by peter-laptop.wemm.org (8.13.3/8.13.3/Submit) id j2HIw4ee004090; Thu, 17 Mar 2005 10:58:04 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from peter@wemm.org) X-Authentication-Warning: peter-laptop.wemm.org: peter set sender to peter@wemm.org using -f From: Peter Wemm To: Bruce Evans Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 10:58:03 -0800 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.2 References: <200503162023.j2GKNWnJ099551@repoman.freebsd.org> <20050316205829.GA3556@dragon.NUXI.org> <20050317121651.N72560@delplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <20050317121651.N72560@delplex.bde.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200503171058.04786.peter@wemm.org> cc: cvs-src@freebsd.org cc: src-committers@freebsd.org cc: Pawel Jakub Dawidek cc: cvs-all@freebsd.org cc: David O'Brien Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/i386/conf GENERIC src/sys/amd64/conf GENERIC X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 18:58:33 -0000 On Wednesday 16 March 2005 05:37 pm, Bruce Evans wrote: > On Wed, 16 Mar 2005, David O'Brien wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 09:54:06PM +0100, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote: > >> On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 08:23:31PM +0000, David E. O'Brien wrote: > >> +> -device pcn # AMD Am79C97x PCI 10/100 (precedence over 'lnc') > >> +> +device nve # nVidia nForce MCP on-board Ethernet Networking > >> +> +device pcn # AMD Am79C97x PCI 10/100(precedence over 'lnc') > >> [...] > >> +> -device pcn # AMD Am79C97x PCI 10/100 (precedence over 'lnc') > >> +> +device nve # nVidia nForce MCP on-board Ethernet Networking > >> +> +device pcn # AMD Am79C97x PCI 10/100(precedence over 'lnc') > >> > >> Why you removed this space?!:) > > > > Make it clear nve needs mii, and shorten long comment line. > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > Better remove the bogus quotes around lnc. Quoting elsewhere in this > file is inconsistent and about 1/4 of it seems to be bogus. > > Are the comments on precedence even correct? I think precedence > according to ordering in the config file hasn't worked for many years. > PCI devices may (should) have precedence over ISA ones, but that is a > general property and should be expressed better. I think pcn may or > may not have precedence over lnc depending on resource conflicts. pcn > is PCI-only while lnc is PCI/ISA/CBUS, so it is bogus for lnc to be > in the ISA-only section and very unclear how pcn has precedence over > the PCI part of lnc. You are completely correct. The order of entries in the config file has absolutely no bearing on the device probe/attach or precedence. Any comments to that effect are bogus and should be removed. The bubble sorting of the sysinit entries would scramble their registration order with newbus, so it isn't safe to assume *any* implied order or precedence. If there are any remnants of probe precedence, it is in the order specified in device.hints for old isa devices, but even then, I'm not sure that it has any effect. The "correct" (for a small value thereof) way to specify precedence is with the sensitive flags in the drivers. The only other dependable order of probling is that isa probes happen after pci/eisa/etc probes. A pci probe will always get a chance to grab a device before an isa probe even gets a chance to look at it. Again, regardless of the order in config files. -Peter