On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 12:59 -0700, Sean Bruno wrote: > On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 10:54 -0400, John Baldwin wrote: > > On Saturday, July 27, 2013 12:32:34 pm Sean Bruno wrote: > > > Author: sbruno > > > Date: Sat Jul 27 16:32:34 2013 > > > New Revision: 253708 > > > URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/253708 > > > > > > Log: > > > At some point after stable/7 the ACPI and ISA interfaces to the IPMI > > > controller > > > no longer have the parent in the device tree. This causes the identify > > > function in ipmi_isa.c to attempt to probe and poke at the ISA IPMI > > > interface > > > > They never had a common parent, even in 6.x and 7.x. > > > The identify function in isa_ipmi.c shows that there is already an > ipmi(4) device attached (ACPI) version and aborts on 7.x. in 9.x and > higher (not testing on 8.x) the identify function does not see an > attached ipmi interface and attempts to create /dev/ipmi1 > > Am I just confused on the bus relationship here? > > We've gone over this a couple of times in different emails on different > lists. I've just never sat down and walked through the code. If you > see a better way to keep ipmi(4) from erroneously attaching to the ISA > interface, let me know.
Or ... ya know, I could just be 100% wrong? stable/7 attaches to an /dev/ipmi1 as well on these Dell R410 units. *sigh* http://people.freebsd.org/~sbruno/ipmi_sean_is_wrong.txt so, the modification I made does resolve the "ipmi1" thing alltogether and is correct (AFAIK), but should be applied to all revisions, not just 9/head. Or, am I wrong again? :-) Sean
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
