That's quite a hack you wrote, but I think any nicer way of doing it is
going to require a big rewrite..
Patrick Wildt <patr...@blueri.se> wrote:
> as it turns out, puc(4) has trouble with 64-bit BARs. The issue is that
> puc(4) tries to map every BAR before doing anything else. While iter-
> ating over the BARs it assumes the next BAR is always 4 bytes after the
> other. For 64-bit BARs that's wrong. On a device with a 64-bit BAR, it
> will map the BAR correctly, and then using the 0x4 offset try to map an-
> other BAR, thus breaking the previously correctly mapped bar.
>
> Now I'm not sure this is the best fix, but I think the easiest way is to
> just skip that particular entry. Thus, with two 64-bit BARs, sc->sc_bar
> mappings[1] and [3] will be empty. That's fine since the pucdata.c
> entries reference the absolute BAR address, like 0x10 and 0x18, and the
> mapping to the index of the array is done using that absolute value:
>
> #define PUC_PORT_BAR_INDEX(bar) (((bar) - PCI_MAPREG_START) / 4)
>
> bar = PUC_PORT_BAR_INDEX(desc->ports[i].bar);
> if (!sc->sc_bar_mappings[bar].mapped) {
> ...
>
> Feedback?
>
> Patrick
>
> diff --git a/sys/dev/pci/puc.c b/sys/dev/pci/puc.c
> index 2c5f3065177..7ec25ecaad2 100644
> --- a/sys/dev/pci/puc.c
> +++ b/sys/dev/pci/puc.c
> @@ -163,8 +163,11 @@ puc_pci_attach(struct device *parent, struct device
> *self, void *aux)
> 0, &sc->sc_bar_mappings[i].t, &sc->sc_bar_mappings[i].h,
> &sc->sc_bar_mappings[i].a, &sc->sc_bar_mappings[i].s, 0)
> == 0);
> - if (sc->sc_bar_mappings[i].mapped)
> + if (sc->sc_bar_mappings[i].mapped) {
> + if (type == PCI_MAPREG_MEM_TYPE_64BIT)
> + i++;
> continue;
> + }
>
> #if NCOM > 0
> /*
> @@ -184,6 +187,8 @@ puc_pci_attach(struct device *parent, struct device
> *self, void *aux)
> sc->sc_bar_mappings[i].h = comconsioh;
> sc->sc_bar_mappings[i].s = COM_NPORTS;
> sc->sc_bar_mappings[i].mapped = 1;
> + if (type == PCI_MAPREG_MEM_TYPE_64BIT)
> + i++;
> continue;
> }
> #endif
>
