Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 18 Feb 2005 14:31:48 -0500
From:      Coleman Kane <zombyfork@gmail.com>
To:        Jung-uk Kim <jkim@niksun.com>
Cc:        freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: PC Card subpart to R3000 thread
Message-ID:  <346a8022050218113126c1af5f@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <200502181249.53139.jkim@niksun.com>
References:  <20050218.102310.74705720.imp@bsdimp.com> <200502181249.53139.jkim@niksun.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 12:49:53 -0500, Jung-uk Kim <jkim@niksun.com> wrote:
> On Friday 18 February 2005 12:23 pm, Warner Losh wrote:
> > # I'll note that I really like to be cc'd on changes that impact
> > the # pccard part of the system :-)
> >
> > : Yeah the recipient of the fix just emailed me about this, I am
> > : guessing that the #if 0 is the uncommitable part. Is there any
> > : way that this can be done by the kernel (the PCI reg write, that
> > : is)? Is there any reason that it can't be done there?
> >
> > I'd be extremely reluctant to commit the #if 0 part of the fix.
> > The problem is that we don't quite do bus numbering/renumbering
> > correctly for pci busses in general.  There's some kludges in
> > cardbus bridge to cope with this, but I don't like them much at
> > all.
> >
> > So, yes, something can be done about this in the kernel, but that
> > something is rather more complicated than this overly simplistic
> > kludge.
> 
> Exactly. :-)

Oh, cool. I was not aware of this numbering issue.

> 
> > --- src/sys/dev/pci/pci_pci.c.orig    Thu Jul  1 03:46:28 2004
> > +++ src/sys/dev/pci/pci_pci.c         Sat Jan 22 01:21:50 2005
> > @@ -319,6 +319,8 @@
> >                               start = sc->iobase;
> >                       if (end > sc->iolimit)
> >                               end = sc->iolimit;
> > +                     if (start <= end)
> > +                                     ok = 1;
> >
> >
> > This looks OK to me.  At first I thought it was crazy and
> > unnecessary to set this, but I think it might be OK.  It does seem
> > very odd that we've not seen this before now.  Oh, wait, the <=
> > should be <.  == would imply that the range is 0.
> 
> Oops, my bad.
> 
> Thanks for committing this!
> 
> Jung-uk Kim
> 
> > Warner
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-amd64
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-amd64-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
>



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?346a8022050218113126c1af5f>