Re: request for review: bus_alloc_resource(9)

2000-05-20 Thread Warner Losh
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sergey Babkin writes: : Warner Losh wrote: : : In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sergey Babkin writes: : : The code seems to guarantee that if the probe routine returns 0 : : then the attach routine will be called right away. So if the probe : : routine returns 0

Re: request for review: bus_alloc_resource(9)

2000-05-20 Thread Warner Losh
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sergey Babkin writes: : Warner Losh wrote: : : In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sergey Babkin writes: : : : # If a driver returns a success code which is less than zero, it must : : # not assume that it will be the same driver which is attached to the : : # device.

Re: request for review: bus_alloc_resource(9)

2000-05-19 Thread Alexander Langer
Thus spake Matthew N. Dodd ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): is just a range; start and length, and a type. The 'rid' has nothing to do with offsets into a memory/port resource. Hmm. When I wrote Doug Rabson about newbus months ago, he gave me that part of code: rid = 0x10; /* offset of pci

Re: request for review: bus_alloc_resource(9)

2000-05-19 Thread Alexander Langer
Thus spake Matthew N. Dodd ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): Think of an 'rid' as in index into an array of like resources. A resource is just a range; start and length, and a type. The 'rid' has nothing to do with offsets into a memory/port resource. Ah, yes. That is probably why

Re: request for review: bus_alloc_resource(9)

2000-05-19 Thread Mike Smith
Thus spake Matthew N. Dodd ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): is just a range; start and length, and a type. The 'rid' has nothing to do with offsets into a memory/port resource. Hmm. When I wrote Doug Rabson about newbus months ago, he gave me that part of code: rid = 0x10; /* offset of

Re: request for review: bus_alloc_resource(9)

2000-05-19 Thread Alexander Langer
Thus spake Mike Smith ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): Not at all; in the PCI context, that's what the rid is. As has been said several times now, the meaning of the rid is _bus_specific_. Ah, I wrote that before reading the next mails, stupid me. Well, thanks for all your comments. I'll add/merge the

Re: request for review: bus_alloc_resource(9)

2000-05-19 Thread Alexander Langer
Second, reworked version now available. http://big.endian.de/FreeBSD/bus_alloc_resource.9 In my eyes, it's quite correct now and is worth a PR/commit. I'll send a PR if I get your ok. Alex -- I need a new ~/.sig. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe

Re: request for review: bus_alloc_resource(9)

2000-05-19 Thread Sergey Babkin
Warner Losh wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sergey Babkin writes: : The code seems to guarantee that if the probe routine returns 0 : then the attach routine will be called right away. So if the probe : routine returns 0 they don't have to be freed. Actually, the : comments seem to say

Re: request for review: bus_alloc_resource(9)

2000-05-18 Thread Matthew N. Dodd
On Thu, 18 May 2000, Alexander Langer wrote: I've written bus_alloc_resource(9). I need one with _experience_ on newbus to review it. http://big.endian.de/FreeBSD/bus_alloc_resource.9 You still don't understand what the 'rid' parameter is. Think of an 'rid' as in index into an array of

Re: request for review: bus_alloc_resource(9)

2000-05-18 Thread Mike Smith
On Thu, 18 May 2000, Alexander Langer wrote: I've written bus_alloc_resource(9). I need one with _experience_ on newbus to review it. http://big.endian.de/FreeBSD/bus_alloc_resource.9 You still don't understand what the 'rid' parameter is. Think of an 'rid' as in index into an

Re: request for review: bus_alloc_resource(9)

2000-05-18 Thread Warner Losh
Some problems. Here's my comments. I'm posting them in case my understanding is inaccurate. If it is, I don't want you to codify it. And I want to know so I don't keep misunderstanding :-) First, rid. "rid" is a bus specific handle that identifies the resource being allocated. For ISA this

Re: request for review: bus_alloc_resource(9)

2000-05-18 Thread Mike Smith
Second, RF_SHAREABLE should generally never be used. There's one exception. That's for interrupts that can be shared in the hardware. Actually, this is almost exactly the wrong way up; RF_SHAREABLE should always be used unless you know that the interrupt _can't_ be shared. In many cases,

Re: request for review: bus_alloc_resource(9)

2000-05-18 Thread Warner Losh
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mike Smith writes: : ... and this is why. The pccard/cardbus bridge code, or the parent bus : code, needs to decide whether the interrupt is or is not shareable - not : the driver. Ah. That's a good point. The ISA and PCCARD bridges should turn off interrupt

Re: request for review: bus_alloc_resource(9)

2000-05-18 Thread Sergey Babkin
Warner Losh wrote: One should generally only call these functions in attach. If you must call them in probe, one must release the resource before returning from the probe. However, since they can affect bridge settings, it may be unavoidable to call them from the probe routine. The code

Re: request for review: bus_alloc_resource(9)

2000-05-18 Thread Warner Losh
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sergey Babkin writes: : The code seems to guarantee that if the probe routine returns 0 : then the attach routine will be called right away. So if the probe : routine returns 0 they don't have to be freed. Actually, the : comments seem to say explicitly that the