On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 02:27:30PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote: > > On 08-Aug-2003 Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Birrell writes > >: > > > >>I'm not convinced that any hacking is required other than passing the > >>device_t parent to nexus_pcib_is_host_bridge (in STABLE) as Bernd says. > >>I traced the boot on my system and the MMCR is initialised early (when > >>the Timecounter "ELAN" output occurs). Immediately following that > >>initialisation, 'pcib' is added as a child of 'nexus'. I don't see why > >>'mmcr' couldn't be added as a child of 'nexus' too. At this point, > >>nexus isn't walking through it's children so there shouldn't be a problem. > >>Then the ELAN specific devices (like GPIO and flash) can attach to 'mmcr'. > >> > >>This seems straight forward. Maybe I'm missing something. 8-) > > > > That's my take too. And MMCR belongs on nexus not on legacy from an > > architectural point of view. > > Well, that would be a major pain on current since nexus is already > finished attaching many of its drivers by the time it gets to here. > Also, if you use ACPI and if ACPI exists, then this function _won't_ > _ever_ _be_ _called_. If you use a hostb PCI driver, then it will > work both for ACPI and legacy.
I agree with this point and if I understood correct this is what John Birrel already had done. However - I would still like to know why device_add_child(nexus, "elanbb", -1); results in an elanbb instance numer 1 connected to pci0. And why I don't get any iicbb childs. -- B.Walter BWCT http://www.bwct.de [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
