Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 17:45:04 -0700 (MST) From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: cokane@cokane.org, zombyfork@gmail.com Cc: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org Subject: Re: PC Card subpart to R3000 thread Message-ID: <20050218.174504.85362426.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <346a802205021816354ebbd91e@mail.gmail.com> References: <346a8022050218113126c1af5f@mail.gmail.com> <20050218.131311.104079154.imp@bsdimp.com> <346a802205021816354ebbd91e@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
From: Coleman Kane <zombyfork@gmail.com> Subject: Re: PC Card subpart to R3000 thread Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 19:35:26 -0500 > On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 13:13:11 -0700 (MST), Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote: > > > > 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 > > > > How do we keep track of the busses now? What considerations must be > taken into account regarding setting the numbering this subordinate > bus number? In the patch code it seems that it is setting this > register to the same value as the bus number (10). You are stating > that it can be set to any number (PCIR_SUBBUS_1 that is)? We don't keep track of the busses now, other than what's in the hardware. We'd have to walk the pci tree to know what the right numbers would be, possibly renumbering. The renumbering part is hard, since it impacts ACPI. I believe that setting to 255 would work. Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050218.174504.85362426.imp>