Re: 15 & 14: ram_attach vs. its using regions_to_avail vs. "bus_alloc_resource" can lead to: panic("ram_attach: resource %d failed to attach", rid)

2024-01-12 Thread Mark Millard
On Jan 12, 2024, at 09:57, Doug Rabson wrote: > On Sat, 30 Sept 2023 at 08:47, Mark Millard wrote: > ram_attach is based on regions_to_avail but that is a problem for > its later bus_alloc_resource use --and that can lead to: > > panic("ram_attach: resource %d failed to attach", rid); > >

Re: 15 & 14: ram_attach vs. its using regions_to_avail vs. "bus_alloc_resource" can lead to: panic("ram_attach: resource %d failed to attach", rid)

2024-01-12 Thread Doug Rabson
On Sat, 30 Sept 2023 at 08:47, Mark Millard wrote: > ram_attach is based on regions_to_avail but that is a problem for > its later bus_alloc_resource use --and that can lead to: > > panic("ram_attach: resource %d failed to attach", rid); > > Unfortunately, the known example is use of EDK2 on

15 & 14: ram_attach vs. its using regions_to_avail vs. "bus_alloc_resource" can lead to: panic("ram_attach: resource %d failed to attach", rid)

2023-09-30 Thread Mark Millard
ram_attach is based on regions_to_avail but that is a problem for its later bus_alloc_resource use --and that can lead to: panic("ram_attach: resource %d failed to attach", rid); Unfortunately, the known example is use of EDK2 on RPi4B class systems, not what is considered the supported way. The