[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: Missing ACPI PCI devices in acpi_pcidev_scan
On 20.01.10 12:37, Grégoire Sutre wrote:
> I'm trying to refactor an old ACPI display patch that I sent  in dec.
> 2008, and that I've been using since (on netbsd-5). The patch
> introduced helper functions to look for a given pci device in the ACPI
> tree. But, as noted in , and I gladly admit it, the implementation
> was not efficient (it used too many ACPI walks without even caching
> results). A new implementation now exists in functions acpi_pcidev_scan
> and acpi_pcidev_find of acpi_pci.c , and I would like to use them.
I have a newer version of the ACPI display patch. I implemented _BCL,
_BCM and _BQC methods and it detects all device capabilities.
> However, acpi_pcidev_scan does not detect all my PCI devices, in fact it
> only detects one: PCI0. This is due to the fact that the function
> acpi_pcidev_scan discards devices that do not have the "_BBN" child
> integer value (PCI bus number). IMHO, PCI devices are not required to
> have this "_BBN" child, except for PCI host bridges. This is how I
> interpret the spec, and also what I observe on two PCs (with iasl).
> It was previously argued in the list that there should be a unique ACPI
> namespace walk to build an in-kernel representation of the ACPI tree
> from which drivers can get all the information they need. I like this
> idea, but I don't see how acpi_pcidev_scan can find the PCI bus number
> of PCI devices without the parent-child information of the ACPI tree,
> and AFAICS this information is currently missing in the in-kernel
> representation (struct acpi_devnode). As AcpiWalkNamespace performs a
> DFS (with both pre and post order visitor callbacks), the parent-child
> information could be stored during the ACPI walk done by acpi_build_tree
> (in acpi.c), provided that struct acpi_devnode is modified to contain
> that information. What do you think?
I appreciate it very much if you get acpi bus scanning done.
The way you propose sounds right to me.
Note, there's some pci bus scanning code in sys/arch/x86/x86/mpacpi.c.
Also note, this pci bus scanning code doesn't work on machines with
more than one PCI host controllers since it ignores the _SEG method.
Main Index |
Thread Index |