* Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020331 00:05] wrote: > Michael Smith wrote: > > > What's the basis of the assumption that the I/O range is > > > unsupported in the first place, and why isn't it true for this > > > bridge chip, if it's a valid assumption for others? > > > > The information was provided in the debugging output and code that Alfred > > supplied in earlier messages. The short answer is "programmer error". > > > > You're walking into another conversation with insufficient context. 8) > > Hey, I'll always sit still for someone willing to give me context... > 8-). > > I was thinking it would be easier to get enough info to Alfred, > and let the patch pop out there. 8-) 8-).
Issue is that there's something wonky with the PCI code such that it doesn't realize that the bus hanging off of a bus wants another memory range outside the PCI device's range. I wonder if there should be a flag to allow this? Some sort of escape mechanism? I need sleep. :) -- -Alfred Perlstein [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 'Instead of asking why a piece of software is using "1970s technology," start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom.' Tax deductible donations for FreeBSD: http://www.freebsdfoundation.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
