Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 16:19:35 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Cc: Garrett Cooper <yanegomi@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Why doesn't ppc(4) check non-ENXIO failures during probe? Message-ID: <201008161619.35740.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinMSdRh0T4aWpZ4gR%2BRogzHQS5Vz7f6O1_vozvo@mail.gmail.com> References: <AANLkTinMSdRh0T4aWpZ4gR%2BRogzHQS5Vz7f6O1_vozvo@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sunday, August 15, 2010 1:33:38 am Garrett Cooper wrote: > One thing that's puzzling me about the ppc(4) driver's ISA > routines is that it only checks to see whether or not the device has > an IO error: Your patch would break hinted ppc devices. ENXIO means that the device_t being probed has an ISA PNP ID, but it does not match any of the IDs in the list. ENONET means that the device_t does not have an ISA ID at all. For the isa bus that means it was explicitly created via a set of ppc.X hints. -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201008161619.35740.jhb>