On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 07:33:27PM +0200, Matthias Drochner wrote:
>
> bou...@antioche.eu.org said:
> > up to now, device_properties() has been used to pass informations
> > which doesn't comes directly from the parent (as opposed to the attach
> > structure)
>
> If we allow to attach pci at acpi, the information would come
> directly from the parent. It is not only address space usage
> but also interrupt routing and power management.
>
> > It looks like this fits device_properties(), much more than and extention
> > of the pci attach args.
>
> It would not be "the" pci attach args. That's the power of multiple
> frontends that we can have special attach args, the softc extended
> as needed and the extra code in its own source file which gets
> only compiled if the kernel is configured that way.
> With properties, you would have all that nasty parsing code in the
> common sources. And no compile time type checks.
this is true, if we attach it at acpi instead of pci.
To me it's not clear if it's the way to go (and I guess we'd need
a pci@pcibios as well ...). It has been argued before that attachement
at apci should go away, and use apci to drive the isa autoconf instead ...
--
Manuel Bouyer <bou...@antioche.eu.org>
NetBSD: 26 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference
--
