From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Aug 16 23:23:56 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE9BF1065694; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 23:23:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from yanegomi@gmail.com) Received: from mail-bw0-f54.google.com (mail-bw0-f54.google.com [209.85.214.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D5A88FC0C; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 23:23:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: by bwz20 with SMTP id 20so2751142bwz.13 for ; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 16:23:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=13HAM+h+O3KoS1M7ItSdvU1lpJozebzEVfbRqLDundw=; b=A3hGk/chiefpO71YkLDnzwQv9lSDrop+doHHM5tZOfYE3LfyEcwWehbdB8/yFCkcON UDvB2HhDukYih6+7dnACg+LCHlZmIxOioc+utDX4Wm71pyrcRg6CgP4ykohbzLmkTBn9 agZUPWfHbmuCmjjLPD+4PEvpi3tkKqwSDjHQE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=bHbUAtlmCkspISUFh54kW8S1dSuqZ4kpiBFuJPjOZ3KKqD3n8ULE78dfD3iLxdIAk3 ajYnmo9+18oAKVRg1IHOtZqYAm5mAe9VXZ3urhdDv9CDTps9+XkTFcyYYnpZIV+EEB9b 4VYaQsPbhF3yowaW/0nJKhL/kYvm3OCvPg1IQ= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.23.81 with SMTP id q17mr3883285bkb.58.1282001034714; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 16:23:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.82.6 with HTTP; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 16:23:54 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <201008161619.35740.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <201008161619.35740.jhb@freebsd.org> Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 16:23:54 -0700 Message-ID: From: Garrett Cooper To: John Baldwin Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 02:42:56 +0000 Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why doesn't ppc(4) check non-ENXIO failures during probe? X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 23:23:56 -0000 On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 1:19 PM, John Baldwin wrote: > On Sunday, August 15, 2010 1:33:38 am Garrett Cooper wrote: >> =A0 =A0 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. =A0ENXIO means that the device= _t > being probed has an ISA PNP ID, but it does not match any of the IDs in t= he > list. =A0ENONET means that the device_t does not have an ISA ID at all. = =A0For the > isa bus that means it was explicitly created via a set of ppc.X hints. Just clarifying some things because I don't know all of the details. If a ISA based parallel port fails to probe with ENOENT, then it's assumed that the configuration details are incorrect, and it should reprobe the device with different configuration settings (irq, isa port, etc) a max of BIOS_MAX_PPC times before it finally bails failing to configure a device (ppc_probe in ppc.c)? What if all of the ISA details in the device.hints file are bogus and the only detail that's correct is in the puc driver, etc? Would it fail to connect the card if it reached the BIOS_MAX_PPC ISA-related failure limit (see ppc_probe again)? Thanks, -Garrett