Re: Upgrading from 5.1_STABLE to 5.99.46 on Sun Fire V100

[Eduardo Horvath <eeh%NetBSD.org@localhost>]

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011, Rafal Boni wrote:

> and the OF device tree looks like so:
> 
>       f0069d48: /pci
>       [...]
>       f007b6bc: /pci/pmu@3
>       f007be84: /pci/pmu@3/i2c@0,0
>       f007d31c: /pci/pmu@3/i2c@0,0/temperature@0,30 ("i2c-max1617")
>       f007d48c: /pci/pmu@3/i2c@0,0/dimm@0,a8        ("i2c-at34c02")
>       (more dimms)
>       f007d6b4: /pci/pmu@3/i2c@0,0/i2c-nvram@0,a0   ("i2c-at24c64")
>       f007e1cc: /pci/pmu@3/i2c@0,0/i2c-nvram@0,a0/idprom@1fd8
>       f007e480: /pci/pmu@3/i2c@0,0/motherboard-fru@0,a2 ("i2c-at24c64")
>       f007f018: /pci/pmu@3/ppm@0,b3                 ("SUNW,smbus-ppm")
>       f007f28c: /pci/pmu@3/beep@0,b2                ("SUNW,smbus-beep")
>       f007f3a4: /pci/pmu@3/fan-control@0,c8         ("SUNW,smbus-fan-control")
>       [...]
> 
> Note that what the i2c controller sees as children on my machine are the
> 'ppm', 'beep' and 'fan-control' instead of (what I would expect):
>  "temparature", N instances of "dimm", "i2c-nvram", "motherboard-fru".
> 
> What I'm not 100% sure of is whether the peers of the i2c bus should be
> passed as well or not -- it doesn't make sense to me from the OF tree,
> but I'm also relatively clueless about OF, so maybe I am missing some-
> thing.

I think what you're seeing here is that pmu@3 is the SMBUS controller and 
/pci/pmu@3/i2c@0,0 is SMBUS to I2C bridge chip.  You should dump the 
properties of /pci/pmu@3 and /pci/pmu@3/i2c@0,0 to be sure.

Eduardo