From owner-acpi-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org Fri Oct 18 09:44:13 2002
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by castle.jp.FreeBSD.org (8.11.6+3.4W/8.11.3) id g9I0iD524838;
	Fri, 18 Oct 2002 09:44:13 +0900 (JST)
	(envelope-from owner-acpi-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org)
Received: from tasogare.imasy.or.jp (root@tasogare.imasy.or.jp [202.227.24.5])
	by castle.jp.FreeBSD.org (8.11.6+3.4W/8.11.3) with ESMTP/inet id g9I0iC324833
	for <acpi-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 09:44:12 +0900 (JST)
	(envelope-from iwasaki@jp.FreeBSD.org)
Received: from localhost (iwa@tasogare.imasy.or.jp [202.227.24.5])
	by tasogare.imasy.or.jp (8.11.6+3.4W/8.11.6/tasogare) with ESMTP/inet id g9I0iAY28149;
	Fri, 18 Oct 2002 09:44:11 +0900 (JST)
	(envelope-from iwasaki@jp.FreeBSD.org)
Message-Id: <20021018.094406.52157886.iwasaki@jp.FreeBSD.org>
To: acpi-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org, jhb@freebsd.org
From: Mitsuru IWASAKI <iwasaki@jp.FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: <XFMail.20021016143440.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
References: <XFMail.20021016143440.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
X-Mailer: Mew version 2.2 on Emacs 20.7 / Mule 4.0 (HANANOEN)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: acpi-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org
Precedence: list
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 09:44:06 +0900
X-Sequence: acpi-jp 1897
Subject: [acpi-jp 1897] Re: multiple host-PCI bridges
Errors-To: owner-acpi-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org
Sender: owner-acpi-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org
X-Originator: iwasaki@jp.FreeBSD.org
X-Distribute: distribute version 2.1 (Alpha) patchlevel 24e+021016

# Forward a unsent message from Andy which was rejected by our ML
# system (somewhat wrong mail header)

---- unsent message header follows ----
From iwasaki Fri Oct 18 03:32:03 2002
Received: from caduceus.fm.intel.com (fmr02.intel.com [192.55.52.25])
	by castle.jp.FreeBSD.org (8.11.6+3.4W/8.11.3) with ESMTP/inet id g9HIW2312660
	for <acpi-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org>; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 03:32:02 +0900 (JST)
	(envelope-from andrew.grover@intel.com)
Received: from petasus.fm.intel.com (petasus.fm.intel.com [10.1.192.37])
	by caduceus.fm.intel.com (8.11.6/8.11.6/d: outer.mc,v 1.51 2002/09/23 20:43:23 dmccart Exp $) with ESMTP id g9HIS5O19125
	for <acpi-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 18:28:05 GMT
Received: from FMSMSX017.fm.intel.com (fmsmsx017.fm.intel.com [132.233.42.196])
	by petasus.fm.intel.com (8.11.6/8.11.6/d: inner.mc,v 1.27 2002/10/16 23:46:59 dmccart Exp $) with ESMTP id g9HISA806864
	for <acpi-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 18:28:11 GMT
Received: by fmsmsx017.fm.intel.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
	id <VBWX4360>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 11:31:55 -0700
Message-ID: <EDC461A30AC4D511ADE10002A5072CAD0236DF2E@orsmsx119.jf.intel.com>
From: "Grover, Andrew" <andrew.grover@intel.com>
To: "'acpi-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org'" <acpi-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org>
Subject: RE: [acpi-jp 1896] multiple host-PCI bridges
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 11:31:54 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain

> From: John Baldwin [mailto:jhb@freebsd.org] 
> Ok, this is somewhat targeted at the Intel guys at least the
> first part.  It seems that most systems with multiple host-PCI
> bridges in them have decided to set the _BBN to zero for all
> host-PCI bridges effectively making _BBN worthless in that case.
> The problem is that we need a way to determine what the bus
> number of a host-PCI bridge is.  The BIOS's in question do seem
> to include valid _ADR's, so if we assume that the bridges are
> on bus 0, we can address and read their PCI config registers.
> However, we then have the problem that there doesn't seem to be
> a standard way for obtaining the bus number from a host-PCI
> bridge, only for doing so with PCI-PCI bridges.  So, like, what
> are we supposed to do?  I'm thinking of sharing some code between
> our non-ACPI PCI bus code and the ACPI PCI bus code that uses
> the vendor ID's to read the bus number for PCI chipsets that we
> know about.  However, this seems kind of gross at best.  Would
> be nice if APCI actually worked in this regard. :(

Can you say specifically what systems you are seeing this on? And now many?

My first inclination is to chalk them up to a bad BIOS. Does FBSD have an
ACPI bad BIOS blacklist?

If these systems are very numerous, we may need to think longer on a better
solution.

Regards -- Andy

