On Jun 15, 2011, at 6:57 AM, John Baldwin wrote: > What I am proposing to do is to change the ACPI bus driver to only add > device_t objects for Device() nodes that have a _HID or _CID. This should > not > break any devices that have a current driver, but it will avoid having ACPI > attach to PCI devices. This does mean that _CRS is currently ignored for PCI > devices. My feeling on that is that if we do feel that is important to > reserve those resources, we should handle that in the ACPI PCI bus driver > itself instead (it can examine _CRS for those devices and allocate resources > if we so choose).
While this should be fine for legacy devices, I do worry about other synthetic devices, such as CPUs, NUMA zones, etc. Would it be better just not to attach acpi device_t's to any nodes under PCI busses? Also, it's still possible some PCI devices would have a CID, so you'd still have to handle this case, right? > It does strike me as odd that BIOSes are assigning resources to PCI devices > via _CRS and I wonder if it is truly valid or it it should just be ignored. I think I remember some BIOSes hooking _CRS to do some late allocations. It's bad behavior, of course, and closely ties their allocation scheme to the order that WIndows traversed the acpi device tree. -Nate _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-acpi To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
