I think this is fine; let's see what justin thinks tomorrow morning!

So I agree in part, and disagree in part for this.

oh that's a good catch!

Thanks for that!

Also /proc/iomem, which i think has what you're after in more specific detail:

I was looking over this again- I think its' technically incomplete because we're missing its complement over in /usr/share for the system-distributed files: http://people.freebsd.org/~kevans/zfscompat.diff -- I haven't had a chance (machine) to test it, but it'd probably be good to land these together if you can confirm.

here's petitboot:

Fix locking error with sched_bind()

Execute SCHED ops in critical section

Wire into build; add PL2 enabled/lock bit; align sysctl names

Add files.x86 and modules entries; align slp_s0_residency sysctl name

Only add dev.asmc.*.wol when AUPO exists; add key constant

Digging further, at least some of the problem here seems to be from our rather unique memory allocation on POWER9:

Prefer unit 0 using devclass check; remove global sentinel. Drop RF_SHAREABLE and document IRQ 8.

I haven't added the ci build, but I assume this has been tested. We may also want to mention gcc15 at https://docs.freebsd.org/en/articles/committers-guide/#_current_compiler_versions

Make dev.asmc.*.raw.len read-only to prevent user overrides

Fix tab alignment in usbdevs

sys/conf/std.nodebug is missing

OK, thanks for testing. I spent most of the day already going over the codebase trying to figure out what might be going wrong, and all I've come up with thus far is that the 32-bit MMIO window setup and DMA configuration both make no sense. It shouldn't even be working at all on POWER9 using the stock code (without this patch).

Minor clarifications to the description.

ok, two normal boots and then the boot with this diff attached are at https://people.freebsd.org/~adrian/powerpc64/20260203-D54745-fail-1.txt .

finalize the change

so it didn't finish booting;

ok, its definitely unhappy, stay tuned!

No longer needed. Upstream fixed their code to DTRT.

rebase after jhibbits@ recent changes

Love these changes. Didn't closely review for grammar, but i didn't trip over anything either

In D55091#1259161, @emaste wrote:

I don't think there's any expectation that the rc scripts will be portable, but when there's no material difference (e.g. in performance, clarity, maintainability, etc.) I agree we should indeed prefer the portable way.

I don't think there's any expectation that the rc scripts will be portable, but when there's no material difference (e.g. in performance, clarity, maintainability, etc.) I agree we should indeed prefer the portable way.