Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 22:26:12 -0700 From: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: cvs-src@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/dev/acpica acpi.c Message-ID: <46318974.2030804@root.org> In-Reply-To: <200704261148.23501.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <20070425162233.8CCFC16A59E@hub.freebsd.org> <200704251356.35785.jhb@freebsd.org> <462FCEB9.40406@root.org> <200704261148.23501.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
John Baldwin wrote: > On Wednesday 25 April 2007 05:57:13 pm Nate Lawson wrote: >> Yes, that should be ok but why not do local first and then push up tree >> if it fails? Semantically, a child of your bus requested the resource >> so most of the time you should be able to handle it. > > Very few resources should really be alloc'd from sysresource though. No PCI > device should be alloc'ing from that for example. It's really only for > special drivers like IPMI (when it's not enumerated as an ACPI device, but > only via SMBIOS tables) where a system resource is reserving it because it is > in use and needs to keep another device (like on PCI where resources aren't > fixed) from using it. Thus, really only a specific allocation of a resource > in sys_resource should ever alloc from that, and all those specific > allocations will fail up in nexus since sys_resource has already claimed > those regions. Ok, I buy that. -- Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?46318974.2030804>