Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 23:10:43 +0200 From: Marius Strobl <marius@alchemy.franken.de> To: "Justin T. Gibbs" <gibbs@scsiguy.com> Cc: gibbs@FreeBSD.org, Gavin Atkinson <gavin@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-sparc64@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: HEAD panic with ofw_pcibus.c 1.21 on Blade 100 Message-ID: <20080902211043.GA21904@alchemy.franken.de> In-Reply-To: <20080901231604.GH80839@alchemy.franken.de> References: <1220278827.70590.35.camel@buffy.york.ac.uk> <20080901161850.GE80839@alchemy.franken.de> <1220287328.70590.46.camel@buffy.york.ac.uk> <20080901194726.GG80839@alchemy.franken.de> <48BC5AF8.50600@scsiguy.com> <20080901231604.GH80839@alchemy.franken.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 01:16:04AM +0200, Marius Strobl wrote: > On Mon, Sep 01, 2008 at 03:13:28PM -0600, Justin T. Gibbs wrote: > > > > If you absolutely have to remove the probe just for sparc, it would > > be better to figure out how to just avoid compiling in that probe > > (config spec change "optional isa_nonpnp", or similar?). > > What I think would be the right thing to do in this regard > is splitting the ISA drivers and bus front-ends into bus > front-ends for LPC or LPC-like busses (i.e. on-board PNP- > only/firmware enumerated) and real ISA busses (non-PNP, > cards in real slots). Though as far as I know there's more > to LPC in terms of ACPI-probing which I currently don't > understand and I admit that I'm reluctant to doing that > much work just to keep a single bus front-end from probing... > Thinking some more about it I decided to work around the lack of distinction between LPC and real ISA at a different level. Marius
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080902211043.GA21904>