From owner-freebsd-amd64@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Feb 18 20:17:12 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE36216A4CE for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2005 20:17:12 +0000 (GMT) Received: from harmony.village.org (rover.village.org [168.103.84.182]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BDBE43D55 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2005 20:17:11 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by harmony.village.org (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j1IKDBx5048086; Fri, 18 Feb 2005 13:13:11 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 13:13:11 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <20050218.131311.104079154.imp@bsdimp.com> To: cokane@cokane.org, zombyfork@gmail.com From: Warner Losh In-Reply-To: <346a8022050218113126c1af5f@mail.gmail.com> References: <20050218.102310.74705720.imp@bsdimp.com> <200502181249.53139.jkim@niksun.com> <346a8022050218113126c1af5f@mail.gmail.com> 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: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org Subject: Re: PC Card subpart to R3000 thread X-BeenThere: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the AMD64 platform List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 20:17:12 -0000 From: Coleman Kane Subject: Re: PC Card subpart to R3000 thread Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 14:31:48 -0500 > On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 12:49:53 -0500, Jung-uk Kim 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. There are a number of issues relating to it, which makes it hard to solve generically (well, one could always write 255 as the subbus number, but that has some rather severe performance implications... Warner