On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 04:18:52PM -0600, David Young wrote: > On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 01:54:19PM -0800, Jason Thorpe wrote: > > > > On Dec 3, 2009, at 1:04 PM, Christoph Egger wrote: > > > > > Module Name: src > > > Committed By: cegger > > > Date: Thu Dec 3 21:04:29 UTC 2009 > > > > > > Modified Files: > > > src/sys/dev/acpi: acpi.c files.acpi > > > Added Files: > > > src/sys/dev/acpi: acpi_pci.c acpi_pci.h > > > > > > Log Message: > > > Enumerate ACPI PCI devices. Allows to link PCI with ACPI devices. > > > Patch presented on tech-kern@ > > > http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-kern/2009/11/28/msg006552.html > > > > > > > Shouldn't we just attach PCI busses @ ACPI instead of mainbus? > > ISTM that ACPI is a lot of things, but in this instance, it is "hardware > metadata." Existing practice notwithstanding, acpi is not a proper > "parent" for any ISA/PCI device/bus driver. (The same goes for isapnp.) > > IMO, very few devices should attach at acpi, but autoconfiguration > should use ACPI data, when it is available, for the "direct" > configuration of devices that we would otherwise have to probe for. Was there ever a disagreement on that? I fail to see how the API that was just committed will not result in a #if NACPI > 0 block every time it is used. -- Quentin Garnier - cube%cubidou.net@localhost - cube%NetBSD.org@localhost "See the look on my face from staying too long in one place [...] every time the morning breaks I know I'm closer to falling" KT Tunstall, Saving My Face, Drastic Fantastic, 2007.
Attachment:
pgp8WNO6FOOj2.pgp
Description: PGP signature