Daemon News Ezine BSD News BSD Mall BSD Support Forum BSD Advocacy BSD Updates

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: bus_generic_probe() is wrong I think

On 31-Aug-2002 M. Warner Losh wrote:
> In message: <XFMail.20020830225952.jhb@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>             John Baldwin <jhb@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>: Pretty much what I was saying.  I have an atsys(4) driver btw that apm
>: and nexus_pcib are now descendants of and only gets attached if the
>: acpi identify fails in the jhb_acpipci p4 branch.
> hmmmm, I like this.  maybe a pc98sys(4) driver might also not be a bad
> idea.  I'm not sure how pc98's nexus is related to i386's, but I know
> that there's a lot of intertwingling there that aren't immeidately
> apparent :-(.  Looking at the files.pc98 list, it appears that it uses
> the i386 nexus.
> Of course at this point apm(98) and the pci host bridge stuff likely
> is the same between the two ports.  So maybe atsys isn't quite the
> right name.  This is one thing that's common between the two ports,
> even though a lot of the details of each of these beasts differ.

Actually, a pc98sys(4) wouldn't be that hard to do, but most of those
differences are in things like rman management that is still in the
nexus after my atsys(4) changes.  If we want to merge that with AT-sys
for now, that's no big deal, though I would need a better name for it.

> Warner


John Baldwin <jhb@xxxxxxxxxxx>  <><  http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/
"Power Users Use the Power to Serve!"  -  http://www.FreeBSD.org/

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx
with "unsubscribe freebsd-new-bus" in the body of the message