From owner-acpi-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org Sun Oct  6 08:33:56 2002
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by castle.jp.FreeBSD.org (8.11.6+3.4W/8.11.3) id g95NXuD17749;
	Sun, 6 Oct 2002 08:33:56 +0900 (JST)
	(envelope-from owner-acpi-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org)
Received: from axe-inc.co.jp (axegw.axe-inc.co.jp [61.199.217.66])
	by castle.jp.FreeBSD.org (8.11.6+3.4W/8.11.3) with ESMTP/inet id g95NXs317744
	for <acpi-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org>; Sun, 6 Oct 2002 08:33:55 +0900 (JST)
	(envelope-from takawata@axe-inc.co.jp)
Received: from localhost.axe-inc.co.jp (localhost.axe-inc.co.jp [127.0.0.1])
	by axe-inc.co.jp (8.9.3+3.2W/3.7W) with SMTP id IAA27963
	for <acpi-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org>; Sun, 6 Oct 2002 08:33:54 +0900 (JST)
Message-Id: <200210052333.IAA27963@axe-inc.co.jp>
X-Authentication-Warning: axegw.axe-inc.co.jp: localhost.axe-inc.co.jp [127.0.0.1] didn't use HELO protocol
To: acpi-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 05 Oct 2002 12:44:26 MST."
             <DAD35618-D89A-11D6-86D5-0050E4660701@freebsd.org>
From: Takanori Watanabe <takawata@axe-inc.co.jp>
Reply-To: acpi-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org
Precedence: list
Date: Sun, 06 Oct 2002 08:33:54 +0900
X-Sequence: acpi-jp 1881
Subject: [acpi-jp 1881] Re: acpi-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org
Errors-To: owner-acpi-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org
Sender: owner-acpi-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org
X-Originator: takawata@axe-inc.co.jp
X-Distribute: distribute version 2.1 (Alpha) patchlevel 24e+020902

In message <DAD35618-D89A-11D6-86D5-0050E4660701@freebsd.org>, Michael Smith 
wrote:

>This is nothing more than a convenience to the debugger; since we

  Absolutely NO.

>When it comes to matching devices enumerated by means other than
>ACPI with devices in the ACPI namespace, we're talking about PCI
>these days and the _ADR resource is adequate as long as the bus
>number is correct, and ACPI tells us we can get the bus number
>either from _ADR directly or from the device's scope in the ACPI
>namespace.

PCI Bus number is *NOT* encoded in _ADR value. 
Device and Function number only. Bus number of ACPI pci device object 
should be identified via parent device object. Bus number object
is _BBN and it only appears in multipule host pci bridge system.
It is the very reason that device tree should reflect ACPI device
tree. ACPI object for pci device on pci-pci bridge only identified
via namespace topology.

Scope(_SB){
 Device(PCI0){ /*pcib0 on port 0xcf8-0xcff... on acpi0/
   _ADR(0x0)
   Device(PCI1){ /*Bus number of this bus 
		  is not mentioned and even can be changed*/
     _ADR(0x1) /*pcib1 at device 1.0 on pci0*/
	       /pci? at pcib1 (? is some value)*/
     Device(FOO){
	_ADR(0x1) /*foo0 at device 1.0 on pci?*/
     }
   }
  }
}


>
>> I don't object some ISA-like devices are direct child of acpi bus.
>> It is  more better that ISA bus children is automatically
>> child of ACPI-bus children.
>
>Are you suggesting we should have an acpi_isab bus that replaces
>the standard isab and hang the "manually" probed ISA devices off
>it if there is ACPI in the system?  That works for me.

Agreed.
