Re: newbus ioport usage

From: Nate Lawson (nate_at_root.org)
Date: 01/27/04

  • Next message: Poul-Henning Kamp: "Re: HEADSUP: Change of makedev() semantics." 
    Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 22:15:09 -0800 (PST)
To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com>

    On Mon, 26 Jan 2004, M. Warner Losh wrote:
    > In message: <20040126191657.B31071@root.org>
    > Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> writes:
    > : On Mon, 26 Jan 2004, M. Warner Losh wrote:
    > : > In message: <20040126165523.W30461@root.org>
    > : > Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> writes:
    > : > : Ok, I'm doing the set/alloc and it works. However, one weird thing. If I
    > : > : allocate all ports at boot time, it succeeds. My driver goes through
    > : > : multiple release/allocate cycles and it all works as expected. However if
    > : > : I boot and attach to only one of the registers, subsequent attempts to
    > : > : attach the second one fail. The resources are 2 IO ports, 0x101c and
    > : > : 0x101d. Both are 1 byte.
    > : >
    > : > Deos devinfo -r show any cause for the problem? Maybe you aren't
    > : > releasing them properly? Also, why not allocate them as a block of 2?
    > :
    > : Ok, I've found what's going on. Apparently my acpi_sysresource0
    > : pseudo-device is claiming all resources in its _CRS method. If I don't
    > : boot with 0x101c and 0x101d attached, it attaches to 0x1010-0x109d. But
    > : if I boot attaching them, it reserves less of the range.
    > :
    > : acpi_cpu0
    > : I/O ports:
    > : 0x101c
    > : 0x101d
    > :
    > : acpi_sysresource0
    > : I/O ports:
    > : 0x10-0x1f
    > : 0x24-0x25
    > : 0x28-0x29
    > : 0x2c-0x2d
    > : 0x2e-0x2f
    > : 0x30-0x31
    > : 0x34-0x35
    > : 0x38-0x39
    > : 0x3c-0x3d
    > : 0x50-0x53
    > : 0x72-0x77
    > : 0x90-0x9f
    > : 0xa4-0xa5
    > : 0xa8-0xa9
    > : 0xac-0xad
    > : 0xb0-0xb5
    > : 0xb8-0xb9
    > : 0xbc-0xbd
    > : 0x101e-0x109d
    > : 0x1180-0x11bf
    > : 0x15e0-0x15ef
    > : 0x1600-0x167f
    > :
    > : I'm not sure of a way around this. All ASL I've seen keeps these
    > : registers contiguous so I could whack out a block of 8 of them, although
    > : that doesn't seem correct. Perhaps acpi_cpu should be able to override
    > : the acpi_sysresource0 allocations, maybe by asking it for the resource if
    > : bus_resource_alloc returns NULL. Thoughts?
    >
    > Have acpi bus own the resources that acpi_sysresource0 uses.

    bus_set_resource(device_get_parent(dev), ...) ?

    > Allow children to get at parts of that as they see fit.

    Sounds good, but no idea how to implement this. Would I have to implement
    new parts to acpi_alloc_resource()?

    -Nate
    _______________________________________________
    freebsd-arch@freebsd.org mailing list
    http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch
    To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arch-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"

  • Next message: Poul-Henning Kamp: "Re: HEADSUP: Change of makedev() semantics."