From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Feb 7 20:47:35 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C41FA8A for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 20:47:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bigwig.baldwin.cx (bigwig.baldwin.cx [IPv6:2001:470:1f11:75::1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 404A11726 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 20:47:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from jhbbsd.localnet (unknown [209.249.190.124]) by bigwig.baldwin.cx (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3F5DDB96B; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 15:47:34 -0500 (EST) From: John Baldwin To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI bus number management Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 15:27:41 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (FreeBSD/8.4-CBSD-20130906; KDE/4.5.5; amd64; ; ) References: <201402061437.53355.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201402071527.41452.jhb@freebsd.org> X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (bigwig.baldwin.cx); Fri, 07 Feb 2014 15:47:34 -0500 (EST) Cc: Julian Stecklina X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 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: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 20:47:35 -0000 On Friday, February 07, 2014 7:43:51 am Julian Stecklina wrote: > On 02/06/2014 08:37 PM, John Baldwin wrote: > > I would like to commit this to HEAD soon but thought I would post it for some > > pre-commit testing for the brave. :) If you are really brave, try booting > > with 'hw.pci.clear_buses=1' which will force the kernel to renumber all buses > > in the system. > > This is a really bad idea, because BIOS/SMM tends to have those > hardcoded. Or am I misunderstanding the purpose of this patch? The BIOS just programs them initially. By default we use whatever the BIOS programs and only rely on this infrastructure if we need to grow the tree for some reason (e.g. hotplug). However, it is definitely valid for an OS to reassign bus numbers as it sees fit. -- John Baldwin