shige@NetBSD.org wrote:

> Because, 1) pchb was found twice on this port,

PCI-HOST bridge is found twice (localbus and pcibus) on all ports,
though some ports don't have an independent driver to configure it
on localbus. The problem (which is consusing) is that all other ports
use "pchb" for the latter but evbppc uses it for the former.

> and 2) how to attach pchb on i386 ports is different from other ports.

No, i386 has the same way to attach pchb(4) at pci with other ports.
Just pchb(4) on i386 does more thing (attaching other PCI bus) than
other ports.

> If we could implement to skkip host bridge devices on PCI-bus
> (this is a `mi' part) as you said, we may not have to rename
> its naming.

Why should we skip it explicitly?
We could give different name for the PCI-HOST bridge driver on PCI
bus (since pchb(4) on pci is not defined in MI), or just have no driver
for it if we chose to use the name of "pchb" for a driver to configure
the bridge at localbus, not one at pci.
---
Izumi Tsutsui