on 16/08/2011 22:09 John Baldwin said the following: > On Tuesday, August 16, 2011 12:26:11 pm Andriy Gapon wrote: >> >> The following are pure speculations, I'd rather let David speak, but just in >> case; >> >> on 16/08/2011 18:45 John Baldwin said the following: >>> Well, that would seem odd, still. It only returns BUS_PROBE_GENERIC (not >>> 0), so >>> David's driver's probe routine should still be called to get a chance to >>> attach to >>> the device. >> >> Maybe it doesn't do that exactly because device and vendor ID are zeroes as >> David >> described earlier. > > Eh? device_probe_and_attach()'s loop to probe drivers is not PCI-specific, it > has no idea if a given device is PCI device or not let alone if it has > non-zero > subvendor IDs. Also, ata_pci_probe() doesn't look at the subvendor IDs at > all. > >>> Also, the ATA driver only allocates its BAR once, so it shouldn't >>> trigger the panic in question in that case (the panic is only triggered >>> when you >>> try to double-allocate a BAR). >> >> This makes only if the BAR has sane values. Not sure what happens if the >> BAR has >> some junk that duplicates other PCI device, or something like that. > > The panic in question is due to a resource that was reserved by the parent > bus (i.e. either ACPI or PCI) using resource_list_reserve(), then a driver > called resource_list_alloc() on it once successfully, and > resource_list_alloc() is being called a second time to allocate an already- > allocated resource. That won't happen due to junk in a BAR (and BARs are > all standard config header registers anyway). >
Thanks for straightening me on both accounts. -- Andriy Gapon _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
