From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Jan 26 22:36:59 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
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 0299316A4CE
	for <arch@freebsd.org>; Mon, 26 Jan 2004 22:36:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F8BB43D4C
	for <arch@freebsd.org>; Mon, 26 Jan 2004 22:36:58 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from msmith@mu.org)
Received: from [192.168.1.101] (c-24-7-68-232.client.comcast.net
	[24.7.68.232])	by elvis.mu.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 7AF355C7CF; Mon, 26 Jan 2004 22:36:16 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20040126221305.P31969@root.org>
References: <20040126165523.W30461@root.org>
	<20040126.181720.15264443.imp@bsdimp.com> <20040126191657.B31071@root.org>
	<20040126.202628.39465078.imp@bsdimp.com> <20040126221305.P31969@root.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v609)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Message-Id: <1A5AC87C-5093-11D8-8DD8-000393C72BD6@mu.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Mike Smith <msmith@mu.org>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 22:36:13 -0800
To: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.609)
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
	<freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 06:36:59 -0000


On Jan 26, 2004, at 10:15 PM, Nate Lawson wrote:

>> Allow children to get at parts of that as they see fit.
>
> Sounds good, but no idea how to implement this.  Would I have to 
> implement
> new parts to acpi_alloc_resource()?

Probably, yes.  Something like a 'hog' flag on acpi_sysresource and a 
new bus/device
method that lets you ask it for a range back.

  = Mike