From owner-acpi-jp@jp.freebsd.org  Wed Oct 11 17:44:44 2000
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by castle.jp.freebsd.org (8.9.3+3.2W/8.7.3) id RAA34431;
	Wed, 11 Oct 2000 17:44:44 +0900 (JST)
	(envelope-from owner-acpi-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org)
Received: from mass.osd.bsdi.com (adsl-63-202-176-106.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [63.202.176.106])
	by castle.jp.freebsd.org (8.9.3+3.2W/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA34425
	for <acpi-jp@jp.freebsd.org>; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 17:44:43 +0900 (JST)
	(envelope-from msmith@mass.osd.bsdi.com)
Received: from mass.osd.bsdi.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mass.osd.bsdi.com (8.11.0/8.9.3) with ESMTP id e9B8kmh05119
	for <acpi-jp@jp.freebsd.org>; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 01:46:48 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from msmith@mass.osd.bsdi.com)
Message-Id: <200010110846.e9B8kmh05119@mass.osd.bsdi.com>
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.1.1 10/15/1999
To: acpi-jp@jp.freebsd.org
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 11 Oct 2000 17:31:57 +0900."
             <200010110831.RAA77722@shidahara1.planet.sci.kobe-u.ac.jp> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 01:46:48 -0700
From: Mike Smith <msmith@freebsd.org>
Reply-To: acpi-jp@jp.freebsd.org
Precedence: list
X-Distribute: distribute version 2.1 (Alpha) patchlevel 24e+000315
X-Sequence: acpi-jp 852
Subject: [acpi-jp 852] Re: Latest ACPI megapatch update 
Errors-To: owner-acpi-jp@jp.freebsd.org
Sender: owner-acpi-jp@jp.freebsd.org
X-Originator: msmith@freebsd.org

> In message <200010110342.e9B3gFh04186@mass.osd.bsdi.com>, Mike Smith $B$5$s$$$o$/(B
> :
> >
> >1)  nexus       2)   nexus               3)  nexus
> >      |                |                       +----------+
> >    acpi0            acpi0                     |          |
> >      |                +-----------+         acpi0    nexus_pcib0
> >   acpi_pci0           |           |           |          |
> >      |             acpi_pci0     pci0      acpi_pci0    pci0
> >     pci0
> >
> 
> ...
> >
> >This is like Approach 1.  I'm OK with doing this too, but tell me what 
> >you think about Approach 3.
> 
> Oh sorry, I overlooked this phrease.
> I think 1) is the best way because we utilize the benefit of 2) and 3) and
> can easly manage I/O port resource as other device.

Ok.  I mostly have this working now.  I'll try to get something out 
tomorrow or Thursday (I will be away most of tomorrow).

Regards,
-- 
... every activity meets with opposition, everyone who acts has his
rivals and unfortunately opponents also.  But not because people want
to be opponents, rather because the tasks and relationships force
people to take different points of view.  [Dr. Fritz Todt]
           V I C T O R Y   N O T   V E N G E A N C E


