Subject: Re: puc based 16550 on macppc?
To: Joachim Thiemann <joachim.thiemann@gmail.com>
From: Michael Lorenz <macallan@netbsd.org>
List: port-macppc
Date: 04/23/2007 23:49:46
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
On Apr 23, 2007, at 22:55, Joachim Thiemann wrote:
> On 23/04/07, Michael Lorenz <macallan@netbsd.org> wrote:
>> Hi Joachim,
>> [...]
>> To make it usable anyway we'd have to enable it by hand, write some
>> safe values into its BARs and figure out which interrupt to use.
>> Finding he interrupt shouldn't be a problem - the bridge's
>> interrupt-map should tell us, the code is already there. The rest is
>> easy enough to do, I can write you such a patch if you want.
>> [...]
>> The problem with this - it's a gross hack that won't go into the
>> official source tree. If you add new cards you may need to pick new
>> addresses for the puc since OF - being unaware of this hack - may
>> assign the ranges you picked to said new card and then things would
>> blow up.
>
> Hi Michael,
> your efforts are greatly appreciated: gross hack or properly
> engineered implementation, I'll take it :-) I guess I'd just have to
> be careful once I migrate to 4.0...
Shouldn't be hard to adapt to 4.0
> All things considered though, I guess in the future it may be useful
> to have a mechanism for handling similar situations for macppc (and
> possibly other OF PCI based architectures? sparc, for example?)
Nathan mentioned that alphas will have similar problems.
> BTW, I've dealt with Lava Computing's tech support before, they seem
> pretty good. I think that if this is a case where it's really them
> that are messing up in some corner case of the PCI spec, they'd be
> willing to at least file it as a bug to fix for future cards. I'd
> happily file a bug report once I figure out what I would need to tell
> them :-)
I'm not a PCI spec lawyer but I'm sure there are such people reading
this list ;)
If I understood it correctly it was a loophole until some recent
version of the PCI spec and the firmware in your mac ( and loads of
other machines ) will probably comply to a not so recent version ( 2.1
or so I guess )
have fun
Michael
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin)
iQEVAwUBRi1+WspnzkX8Yg2nAQKXNwgAqz0uaSjbrCFiyUp3ojM0pPpfi/mqfRlC
RdM4t9WV147SArBg6+PkMvqWGfIZGn3ON6rvdyOqc9a5MCKnsGrBBVziN1vfUFDI
2MpSjDl7HDCop/PNGeQvg0e0G4foqWqZMpjhsbwz/QcARY7mCJcWKB7/xhSAxyYE
0KX8vXmr1eNG9R32hz0j9bZoCzWZpG091sapGFu3uSDBE2Ru28id5dG+YK79JIwu
aUEZvUlyNhCQQyePoGlpyBlA7MI+urzqUu++i4+gBAamZ2Rj2/bGhJ5rjOYJcY+/
NIgfU8zVFh1UJ6t4yuY7Lzpxnd/fp100+QZNak/SYvuQp3jno15SPg==
=a/PM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----