From owner-acpi-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org Fri Oct  4 06:13:28 2002
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by castle.jp.FreeBSD.org (8.11.6+3.4W/8.11.3) id g93LDSL82990;
	Fri, 4 Oct 2002 06:13:28 +0900 (JST)
	(envelope-from owner-acpi-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org)
Received: from mail.speakeasy.net (mail17.speakeasy.net [216.254.0.217])
	by castle.jp.FreeBSD.org (8.11.6+3.4W/8.11.3) with ESMTP/inet id g93LDR382983
	for <acpi-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org>; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 06:13:27 +0900 (JST)
	(envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org)
Received: (qmail 12372 invoked from network); 3 Oct 2002 21:13:26 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO server.baldwin.cx) ([216.27.160.63])
          (envelope-sender <jhb@FreeBSD.org>)
          by mail17.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with DES-CBC3-SHA encrypted SMTP
          for <obrien@freebsd.org>; 3 Oct 2002 21:13:26 -0000
Received: from laptop.baldwin.cx (gw1.twc.weather.com [216.133.140.1])
	by server.baldwin.cx (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g93LDNBv018390;
	Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:13:23 -0400 (EDT)
	(envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org)
Message-ID: <XFMail.20021003171326.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
X-Mailer: XFMail 1.5.2 on FreeBSD
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <8714F224-D713-11D6-9DDF-0050E4660701@freebsd.org>
From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>
To: acpi-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org
Cc: Mitsuru IWASAKI <iwasaki@jp.FreeBSD.org>, obrien@freebsd.org
Reply-To: acpi-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org
Precedence: list
Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2002 17:13:26 -0400
X-Sequence: acpi-jp 1870
Subject: [acpi-jp 1870] RE: (FWD) no floppy drive with acpi.ko loaded
Errors-To: owner-acpi-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org
Sender: owner-acpi-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org
X-Originator: jhb@FreeBSD.org
X-Distribute: distribute version 2.1 (Alpha) patchlevel 24e+020902


On 03-Oct-2002 Michael Smith wrote:
> 
> On Wednesday, October 2, 2002, at 01:12 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
> 
>>>> Eek, that _is_ weird.  Still, it should attach off of 'acpi' due to
>>>> the somewhat bogus way that we flatten all ACPI devices and hang them
>>>> off acpi0.
>>>
>>> Er, no, it shouldn't.
>>
>> Hmm, in his dmesg fdc0 is attaching to acpi0 and not pci0.
>>
>>> The only devices that are "flattened" are 'special' ACPI devices, and
>>> even then, only because it makes no sense to attach them anywhere 
>>> else.
>>
>> Eh?  In acpi_probe_children() we attach all devices, processors, 
>> thermal
>> zones, and power resources as direct children of acpi0.
> 
> Those are all 'special' ACPI devices.

Some of the devices are ISA devices, like the floppy controller for example.
Do we really want to have every ISA device driver have an ACPI attachment?

>>> If anything, the fact that we insist that devices be enumerated under 
>>> a
>>> PCI-ISA bridge in ACPI land is 'bogus' in the eyes of the rest of the
>>> world.
>>
>> Well, we don't do that right now (hang ACPI-enumerated ISA devices off
>> of isa0).  I did notice futzing around in the 'System' app in Windows
>> control panel that Windows attaches ISA devices directly to ACPI but
>> does let PCI devices be attached to the host-PCI bridges hung off
>> acpi0 similar to what we do now.
> 
> That's to be expected; ACPI is not used to enumerate PCI devices, 
> they're
> found by walking the PCI bus.
> 
> As for hanging devices enumerated by ACPI off acpi0 - I can't see any
> real reason not to do it, as long as we think we can trust their 
> resource
> claims (probably safe).

I agree the resource claims are safe, but if we use this model then
should we replace isa0 with pnpbios0 for systems using the pnpbios0
and hang all the ISA devices off of that instead of isa0?  To me it
makes more sense to think of ACPI as an alternate enumerator of PnP
ISA devices.

>   = Mike

-- 

John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>  <><  http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/
"Power Users Use the Power to Serve!"  -  http://www.FreeBSD.org/
