Re: Re: ACPI PCI bus mismatch ?

[Alvaro Lopes <alvieboy-JkNoWtNHh5AAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>]

Ducrot Bruno wrote:

>Hi!
>
>On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 12:39:43PM -0800, Grover, Andrew wrote:
>  
>
>>>From: Alvaro Lopes [mailto:alvieboy-JkNoWtNHh5AAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org] 
>>>OK, I tracked the problem down to acpi_os_derive_pci_id(). If 
>>>I remove 
>>>the call to acpi_os_derive_pci_id() in 
>>>acpi_ev_pci_config_region_setup() 
>>>it works fine.
>>>
>>>Will do some tests on 2.5.x now and let you know.
>>>      
>>>
>>Grrreat.
>>
>>We stuck that code in because some IA64 systems needed it to work.
>>
>>Sounds like we need to re-think all this. A hack for right now might be
>>to only call derive on IA64 boxes.
>>    
>>
>
>
>It is KO for me.
>
>I sticked:
>printk(KERN_DEBUG "BEFORE: 0x%x 0x%x 0x%x 0x%x\n", pci_id->segment, pci_id->bus,
>                                                   pci_id->device, pci_id->function);
>acpi_os_derive_pci_id(...);
>printk(KERN_DEBUG "AFTER: 0x%x 0x%x 0x%x 0x%x\n", pci_id->segment, pci_id->bus,
>                                                   pci_id->device, pci_id->function);
>
>in drivers/acpi/events/evrgnini.c::ev_pci_config_region_setup()
>
>and it show me that pci_id->bus is *always* 0 at BEFORE, and will be
>correct in AFTER (tested by creating 2 OPs, in fact).
>  
>
Perhaps a stupid question, but:

If we are reading the busID for the brigde itself, shouldn't we use the 
"Primary bus number" @ 0x18, instead of "Secondary bus number" @ 0x19 ?

Álvaro
-- 

Álvaro Lopes 
---------------------
A .sig is just a .sig




-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See!
http://www.vasoftware.com