can anyone make available the whole usIII source tree from perforce please

[Marius Strobl]

On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 09:05:22AM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Sunday 22 February 2009 12:02:30 pm Marius Strobl wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 01:24:00AM +0100, Florian Smeets wrote:
> > > On 04.02.2009 15:16 Uhr, Craig Butler wrote:
> > > >Hi Marius,
> > > >
> > > >Thanks for all your hard work and pointers so far.  I have compiled and
> > > >installed the new kernel (cas is statically compiled in).  Unfortunately
> > > >its panic'ing on boot with the following;
> > > >
> > > >cas0:<Sun Cassini+ Gigabit Ethernet>  at device 10.0 on pci0
> > > >panic: trap: memory address not aligned
> > > >cpuid = 0
> > > >Uptime: 1s
> > > >
> > > 
> > > FWIW, i compiled a kernel with these changes and the cards probe fine.
> > > 
> > > cas0: <NS DP83065 Saturn Gigabit Ethernet> mem 0x2000000-0x21fffff at 
> > > device 0.0 on pci1
> > > miibus1: <MII bus> on cas0
> > > cas0: 16kB RX FIFO, 9kB TX FIFO
> > > cas0: Ethernet address: 00:03:ba:XX:XX:XX
> > > cas0: [ITHREAD]
> > > cas1: <NS DP83065 Saturn Gigabit Ethernet> mem 0x2400000-0x25fffff at 
> > > device 1.0 on pci1
> > > miibus2: <MII bus> on cas1
> > > cas1: 16kB RX FIFO, 9kB TX FIFO
> > > cas1: Ethernet address: 00:03:ba:XX:XX:XX
> > > cas1: [ITHREAD]
> > > 
> > > I don't have a cable connected yet, as the machine is remote, but I'll 
> > > be sure to test it soon.
> > > 
> > 
> > FYI, the above panic likely isn't a problem of cas(4) but
> > arises from the fact that the resource of that NIC starts
> > at 0 according to its BAR, which is somewhat uncommon but
> > nevertheless should work yet seems to trigger a bug at
> > some other level.
> 
> The PCI bus driver assumes a BAR of 0 is an invalid resource.  There are many 
> systems that use 0 to disable a BAR.  I have no idea if "0" is a magic value 
> to disable an individual BAR in the PCI spec itself, however.
> 

I'm aware of the former, my understanding of the pci(4) code
is that it won't pre-allocate such a resource but modulo bugs
treats it normally when a driver allocates it though. I've
found no indication in the PCI specs that 0 would be a magic
value here. It also matches what the firmware has assigned
to the device according to the OFW device tree. If the 0
here actually indicates a disabled BAR than this isn't
exactly obvious to me as there would be better means in
OFW to disable a device...

Marius