Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 20:32:28 -0600 (MDT) From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> To: jhb@FreeBSD.ORG Cc: new-bus@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: bus_generic_probe() is wrong I think Message-ID: <20020830.203228.35798916.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.20020830133542.jhb@FreeBSD.org> References: <XFMail.20020830133542.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message: <XFMail.20020830133542.jhb@FreeBSD.org> John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.ORG> writes: : If we are going to support having multiple driver's for a given device : which is a bus (like we do now for PCI busses and like I am doing for : this concept of a system buson i386) then I think that bus devices do : not need to go identify child devices until after they have won the : probe and are being attached. Thus, I'm ending up calling : bus_generic_probe() in my attach routines instead of my probe routines. : Does this make sense or am I missing something? I at least have to do : this in the system bus case here for the same reasons that when I added : another PCI bus driver, I had to change the PCI drivers to add children : devices (equivalent of doing an identify) during attach() time and not : during probe() time. A more fundamental question is why bus_generic_probe() does the child attach/probe? In the probe routine, there's no guarantee that the bus will actually attach at some later point. Shouldn't that be in a bus_generic_attach() routine? The probe should just say 'is this bus here' and the attach should make it possible to then probe the children after a successful attach. Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-new-bus" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020830.203228.35798916.imp>