On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 11:51 AM, Navdeep Parhar <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 09:04:32AM -0800, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: >> >> On Mar 3, 2009, at 8:59 AM, John Baldwin wrote: >> >>> On Tuesday 03 March 2009 11:48:42 am Marcel Moolenaar wrote: >>>> >>>> On Mar 3, 2009, at 6:15 AM, John Baldwin wrote: >>>> >>>>>> diff -r 025cb00d19d7 sys/dev/puc/puc.c >>>>>> --- a/sys/dev/puc/puc.c Sat Feb 28 12:42:37 2009 -0800 >>>>>> +++ b/sys/dev/puc/puc.c Mon Mar 02 12:21:07 2009 -0800 >>>>>> @@ -440,9 +440,6 @@ >>>>>> sc->sc_dev = dev; >>>>>> sc->sc_cfg = cfg; >>>>>> >>>>>> - /* We don't attach to single-port serial cards. */ >>>>>> - if (cfg->ports == PUC_PORT_1S || cfg->ports == PUC_PORT_1P) >>>>>> - return (EDOOFUS); >>>>> >>>>> FWIW, the traditional reason for this is that we made the sio/uart >>>>> or ppc >>>>> drivers claim single port devices directly and only use puc for >>>>> multiple-port >>>>> cards. I'm not sure if that should still be the case or not. >>>>> Marcel, do you >>>>> have an opinion? >>>> >>>> Yes :-) >>>> >>>> I explicitly added the test with that particular error code >>>> to make it absolutely clear that puc(4) is not the driver >>>> for single port cards. The reason being that it's pointless. >>>> >>>> There are 2 things that puc(4) facilitates in: resource >>>> assignment and interrupt handling. For single port cards >>>> there's nothing to distribute nor is there any interrupt >>>> sharing. In other words: there's no value that puc(4) adds. >>>> As such, uart(4) and ppc(4) can attach directly to those >>>> cards and puc(4) does not have to be involved. >>>> >>>> BTW: Traditionally puc(4) was used to attach even to single >>>> port cards. With the puc(4) rewrite I changed that, because >>>> it was really a mixed bag. Some single-port cards were known >>>> to puc(4) others to uart(4)/sio(4) or ppc(4). That typically >>>> leads to confusion given that puc(4) is (still) not in GENERIC. >>>> (i.e. why is this UART attached, but that one isn't, they're >>>> both single port?) >>>> >>>> So, please do not apply the patch and instead add the IDs to >>>> sys/dev/uart/uart_bus_pci.c... >>> >>> This sounds fine to me. :) Navdeep, can you develop a patch for >>> uart(4) >>> instead and test that? >> >> BTW: I forgot to mention that puc(4) needs to back-off from this >> particular card. That means that the catch-all that we have there >> needs to be tweaked. >> >> So, the change to pucdata.c can still be made, but with a big >> comment that states that the entry is added only to avoid puc(4) >> from attaching to that particular 1-port card so that uart(4) >> can claim it... > > OK, I'll keep this in mind and will modify the patch to have uart(4) > claim the card and puc(4) ignore it. I'll post it once I've tested > it.
Reworked patch attached. Works for me. Navdeep > > Regards, > Navdeep > >> >> -- >> Marcel Moolenaar >> [email protected] >> >> >> >
puc.2.patch
Description: Binary data
_______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
