Page MenuHomeFreeBSD

dev: acpica: Add PCI device methods for aarch64
ClosedPublic

Authored by sarah.walker2_arm.com on Aug 25 2026, 12:49 PM.
Tags
None
Referenced Files
F173222890: D59169.id186955.diff
Thu, Sep 24, 10:47 AM
F173201819: D59169.id186204.diff
Thu, Sep 24, 6:40 AM
F173201468: D59169.id186205.diff
Thu, Sep 24, 6:37 AM
F173195584: D59169.id186955.diff
Thu, Sep 24, 5:47 AM
F173186461: D59169.id186365.diff
Thu, Sep 24, 4:26 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Wed, Sep 23, 5:20 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Wed, Sep 23, 12:18 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Tue, Sep 22, 11:42 AM
Subscribers

Details

Summary

Add pci_get_id() and pci_alloc_msi() device methods for aarch64 platforms.

Sponsored by: Arm Ltd

Diff Detail

Repository
rG FreeBSD src repository
Lint
Lint Skipped
Unit
Tests Skipped
Build Status
Buildable 76740
Build 73623: arc lint + arc unit

Event Timeline

Seems fine to me. Rather than defining the methods only on arm64, can we instead only conditionalize the acpi_iort_* calls? Or is there some specific reason not to handle it that way?

sys/arm64/acpica/acpi_iort.c
842

Extra newline

Seems fine to me. Rather than defining the methods only on arm64, can we instead only conditionalize the acpi_iort_* calls? Or is there some specific reason not to handle it that way?

No, I can't think of a reason not to do that.

Looks ok, my comments are just style nits.

sys/arm64/acpica/acpi_iort.c
803

"_alloc_msi" would be more consistent with existing interfaces.

sys/dev/acpica/acpi.c
2354

Explicit comparison with 0 would be better style and clearer IMO.

This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Wed, Sep 9, 12:27 PM
This revision now requires review to proceed.Wed, Sep 9, 1:16 PM
sys/arm64/acpica/acpi_iort.c
842

Still here.

sys/dev/acpica/acpi.c
2368

Same comment here about comparison with 0.

This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Thu, Sep 10, 9:09 AM
sys/dev/acpica/acpi.c
161

Is this still needed (and around DEVMETHOD below)? It looks like it would break the build on non-arm64 as the functions will be unused.

This revision now requires review to proceed.Thu, Sep 10, 10:52 AM
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Thu, Sep 10, 11:20 AM