on 15/05/2012 17:34 John Baldwin said the following: > On Monday, May 14, 2012 12:41:37 pm Andriy Gapon wrote: >> on 14/05/2012 01:43 Bruce Cran said the following: >>> On 13/05/2012 21:06, Andriy Gapon wrote: >>>> Can you produce an equivalent snippet with verbose logging enabled? I have >>>> a >>>> suspicion that these messages are a byproduct from r231161. >>> >>> acpi0: reservation of fee00000, 1000 (3) failed >>> acpi0: reservation of 0, a0000 (3) failed >>> acpi0: reservation of 100000, bbf00000 (3) failed >>> acpi_sysresource: acpi_sysresource0 already exists; skipping it >>> driver bug: Unable to set devclass (class: acpi_sysresource devname: >>> (unknown)) >>> acpi_timer: acpi_timer0 already exists; skipping it >>> driver bug: Unable to set devclass (class: acpi_timer devname: (unknown)) >>> cpu0: <ACPI CPU> on acpi0 >>> ACPI Warning: Incorrect checksum in table [OEMB] - 0x45, should be 0x44 >>> (20120420/tbutils-293) >>> ACPI: SSDT 0xbb7900f0 01340 (v01 DpgPmm P001Ist 00000011 INTL 20051117) >>> ACPI: Dynamic OEM Table Load: >>> ACPI: SSDT 0 01340 (v01 DpgPmm P001Ist 00000011 INTL 20051117) >>> ACPI: SSDT 0xbb791430 004F4 (v01 PmRef P001Cst 00003001 INTL 20051117) >>> ACPI: Dynamic OEM Table Load: >>> ACPI: SSDT 0 004F4 (v01 PmRef P001Cst 00003001 INTL 20051117) >>> acpi_sysresource: acpi_sysresource2 already exists; skipping it >>> driver bug: Unable to set devclass (class: acpi_sysresource devname: >>> (unknown)) >>> cpu2: <ACPI CPU> on acpi0 >>> acpi_sysresource: acpi_sysresource1 already exists; skipping it >>> driver bug: Unable to set devclass (class: acpi_sysresource devname: >>> (unknown)) >>> cpu1: <ACPI CPU> on acpi0 >>> acpi_sysresource: acpi_sysresource3 already exists; skipping it >>> driver bug: Unable to set devclass (class: acpi_sysresource devname: >>> (unknown)) >>> >> >> I think that the following is what happens here in the acpi_timer case. >> Previously one acpi_timer device_t was added with an order of zero and a >> fixed >> unit number of zero in acpi_timer_identify(). Then, another acpi_timer >> device_t >> could be added when walking the ACPI device tree, that device would always >> have a >> later order and a wildcard unit number (-1). >> Now both the "hardwired" device and "auto-probed" device are added with the >> same >> order of 2 and it also so happens that the hardwired device is after the >> auto-probed in the device list. So first the auto-probed device just takes >> the >> unit number of zero because it is free and then the hardwired device fails to >> claim the same unit number. > > Eh. This should not be true. The unit 0 is reserved when device_add_child() > is called in the acpi_timer identify routine. The wildcard device will not be > assigned a unit number until device_probe_child time.
Not sure what you disagree with... First, the wildcard device is added to the child list during the walk. Then, the unit 0 device is added to the list when acpi_timer identify is executed. Then, the wildcard device is probed and gets unit number of zero. Then, the fixed device is being probed and the unit number conflict arises. Am I misunderstanding something? -- Andriy Gapon _______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
