From owner-acpi-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org Fri Oct  4 06:28:59 2002
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by castle.jp.FreeBSD.org (8.11.6+3.4W/8.11.3) id g93LSxt06440;
	Fri, 4 Oct 2002 06:28:59 +0900 (JST)
	(envelope-from owner-acpi-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org)
Received: from mail-out2.apple.com (mail-out2.apple.com [17.254.0.51])
	by castle.jp.FreeBSD.org (8.11.6+3.4W/8.11.3) with ESMTP/inet id g93LSt306416;
	Fri, 4 Oct 2002 06:28:55 +0900 (JST)
	(envelope-from msmith@freebsd.org)
Received: from mailgate1.apple.com (A17-128-100-225.apple.com [17.128.100.225])
	by mail-out2.apple.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g93LSss04969;
	Thu, 3 Oct 2002 14:28:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from scv1.apple.com (scv1.apple.com) by mailgate1.apple.com
 (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.5) with ESMTP id <T5db711594f118064e13d8@mailgate1.apple.com>;
 Thu, 3 Oct 2002 14:28:46 -0700
Received: from freebsd.org (vpn-scv-x0-135.apple.com [17.219.192.135])
	by scv1.apple.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g93LSqb10904;
	Thu, 3 Oct 2002 14:28:53 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v546)
Cc: Mitsuru IWASAKI <iwasaki@jp.FreeBSD.org>, obrien@freebsd.org
To: acpi-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org
From: Michael Smith <msmith@freebsd.org>
In-Reply-To: <XFMail.20021003171326.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
Message-Id: <1BD7910D-D717-11D6-9DDF-0050E4660701@freebsd.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.546)
Reply-To: acpi-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org
Precedence: list
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 14:28:50 -0700
X-Sequence: acpi-jp 1871
Subject: [acpi-jp 1871] 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: msmith@freebsd.org
X-Distribute: distribute version 2.1 (Alpha) patchlevel 24e+020902


On Thursday, October 3, 2002, at 02:13 PM, John Baldwin wrote:

>> 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?

That wasn't my initial preference.

>> 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.

Well, that's how I originally did it.  The challenge is mostly just
avoiding double-attaching single instances of a device.

  = Mike

