Somehow I suspect there is significant back information I'm missing
here. Alan is correct, I do not monitor normally the xwin-discuss list.
And yes, the SPARCLE650 is basically identical to the SPARCLE500.
-- Garrett
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> You might try asking Garret D'Amore, since I don't think he watches
> this list.
> (Though he's limited in what he can say about his former employer's
> systems,
> they are letting him integrate a bunch of code for them into
> OpenSolaris, so
> it may be in the areas they're willing to be public.)
>
> -Alan Coopersmith- alan.coopersmith at sun.com
> Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering
>
> Martin Bochnig wrote:
>>> It will probably fail during pci scanning. Anyways as long as
>>> TADPOLE have
>>> made the same design decision on the SPARCbook 6500
>>
>> Aehm, I forgot the "what and why": To limit the max number of pci
>> bus'es per domain to 256, instead of the UltraSPARC default setting
>> of 4096.
>> The SIGBUS occurrs when misc functions in Pci.c and sparcPci.c try to
>> access bus 257.
>> Simply changing that number by hardwiring it in Pci.h to 256 is not
>> only a bad idea (as it affects most non-TADPOLE systems, but it
>> doesn't even work at all for some reason (strange SIGBUS much earlier
>> instantly after the pci bridge would have been identified by
>> sparcPci.c).
>> My current "fix" doesn't deserve that name: The m64 device happens to
>> be the 13th pci chip identified by sparcPci.c on the 500SX. So I just
>> set the max number of pci devices to 13 in Pci.h .
>> And it works, because nobody tries to access bus 257 that way, but I
>> need some criteria, some logic, how to solve this properly.
>> Automatically and without any consequences for any other platforms.
>>
>> ~m
>> _______________________________________________
>> xwin-discuss mailing list
>> xwin-discuss at opensolaris.org
