Thanks for the replies guys.
Regarding the first issue,
its not that it is a badly designed
mapping, it has to support quite a lot
of mapped resources. way above common
designs.
I see from the discussion that I dropped
an important piece of information.
The VID/DID on each header is the same.
Does that still means multiple FDO’s
created via multiple calls to AddDevice ?
-----Original Message-----
From: Roddy, Mark [mailto:xxxxx@stratus.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 9:39 PM
To: NT Developers Interest List
Subject: [ntdev] Re: Multifunction and PnP
Good point. I should have said: ‘barring developer idiocy’,
rather than ‘not
ever’ 
In the future I’ll stick with the Gilbert&Sullivan
version: ‘well
hardly ever’.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gary G. Little [mailto:xxxxx@broadstor.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 3:10 PM
> To: NT Developers Interest List
> Subject: [ntdev] Re: Multifunction and PnP
>
>
> Mark,
>
> I wouldn’t say “You do not ever get more than one instance of
> your driver”. I have managed to do that a few times. By
> changing the names of sys files and having multiple services
> in the registry before I had completely changed the names of
> everything everywhere. … It was one of those “Veddy
> interesting …” bugs.
>
> –
> Gary G. Little
> xxxxx@broadstor.com
> xxxxx@inland.net
>
>
>
>
> —
> You are currently subscribed to ntdev as:
> xxxxx@stratus.com To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> %%email.unsub%%
>
You are currently subscribed to ntdev as: xxxxx@royatech.com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to %%email.unsub%%
My opinion is that this is bad design and might even be out of spec for
PCI. On the other hand, I actually don’t know why this is bad. However,
if it is allowed then yes if your board has three functions, F0/F1/F2
then you will get called at AddDevice three times per board. You will
have three PDO’s, and perhaps three FDOs to go with them. You will have
to distinguish the PDOs based on their PCI address.
-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
[mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Tomer Goldberg
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 4:06 AM
To: NT Developers Interest List
Subject: [ntdev] Multifunction and PnP #2
Thanks for the replies guys.
Regarding the first issue,
its not that it is a badly designed
mapping, it has to support quite a lot
of mapped resources. way above common
designs.
I see from the discussion that I dropped
an important piece of information.
The VID/DID on each header is the same.
Does that still means multiple FDO’s
created via multiple calls to AddDevice ?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roddy, Mark [mailto:xxxxx@stratus.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 9:39 PM
> To: NT Developers Interest List
> Subject: [ntdev] Re: Multifunction and PnP
>
>
> Good point. I should have said: ‘barring developer idiocy’,
> rather than ‘not
> ever’ In the future I’ll stick with the Gilbert&Sullivan
> version: ‘well
> hardly ever’.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Gary G. Little [mailto:xxxxx@broadstor.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 3:10 PM
> > To: NT Developers Interest List
> > Subject: [ntdev] Re: Multifunction and PnP
> >
> >
> > Mark,
> >
> > I wouldn’t say “You do not ever get more than one instance of
> > your driver”. I have managed to do that a few times. By
> > changing the names of sys files and having multiple services
> > in the registry before I had completely changed the names of
> > everything everywhere. … It was one of those “Veddy
> > interesting …” bugs.
> >
> > –
> > Gary G. Little
> > xxxxx@broadstor.com
> > xxxxx@inland.net
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > —
> > You are currently subscribed to ntdev as:
> > xxxxx@stratus.com To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> > %%email.unsub%%
> >
>
>
> —
> You are currently subscribed to ntdev as: xxxxx@royatech.com To
> unsubscribe send a blank email to %%email.unsub%%
>
You are currently subscribed to ntdev as:
xxxxx@hollistech.com To unsubscribe send a blank email to
%%email.unsub%%
Your opinion is noted but I’m afraid
there?s nothing much I can do about it.
This bridge is an of the shelf chip
of one of the best bridge and system controller
companies.
well anyway I see we’re both in the fog here
about the pnp scenario in this case…and I
tried to avoid distinguishing by BAR types and
sizes but if that?s what I have to go for than I will.
Cheers,
Tom.
BTW I liked the article about IRP_MN_QUERY_INTERFACE
very useful
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Roddy [mailto:xxxxx@hollistech.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 12:43 PM
To: NT Developers Interest List
Subject: [ntdev] RE: Multifunction and PnP #2
My opinion is that this is bad design and might even be out
of spec for
PCI. On the other hand, I actually don’t know why this is
bad. However,
if it is allowed then yes if your board has three functions, F0/F1/F2
then you will get called at AddDevice three times per board. You will
have three PDO’s, and perhaps three FDOs to go with them. You
will have
to distinguish the PDOs based on their PCI address.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
> [mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Tomer Goldberg
> Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 4:06 AM
> To: NT Developers Interest List
> Subject: [ntdev] Multifunction and PnP #2
>
>
>
> Thanks for the replies guys.
>
> Regarding the first issue,
> its not that it is a badly designed
> mapping, it has to support quite a lot
> of mapped resources. way above common
> designs.
>
> I see from the discussion that I dropped
> an important piece of information.
> The VID/DID on each header is the same.
> Does that still means multiple FDO’s
> created via multiple calls to AddDevice ?
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Roddy, Mark [mailto:xxxxx@stratus.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 9:39 PM
> > To: NT Developers Interest List
> > Subject: [ntdev] Re: Multifunction and PnP
> >
> >
> > Good point. I should have said: ‘barring developer idiocy’,
> > rather than ‘not
> > ever’ In the future I’ll stick with the Gilbert&Sullivan
> > version: ‘well
> > hardly ever’.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Gary G. Little [mailto:xxxxx@broadstor.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 3:10 PM
> > > To: NT Developers Interest List
> > > Subject: [ntdev] Re: Multifunction and PnP
> > >
> > >
> > > Mark,
> > >
> > > I wouldn’t say “You do not ever get more than one instance of
> > > your driver”. I have managed to do that a few times. By
> > > changing the names of sys files and having multiple services
> > > in the registry before I had completely changed the names of
> > > everything everywhere. … It was one of those “Veddy
> > > interesting …” bugs.
> > >
> > > –
> > > Gary G. Little
> > > xxxxx@broadstor.com
> > > xxxxx@inland.net
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > —
> > > You are currently subscribed to ntdev as:
> > > xxxxx@stratus.com To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> > > %%email.unsub%%
> > >
> >
> >
> > —
> > You are currently subscribed to ntdev as: xxxxx@royatech.com To
> > unsubscribe send a blank email to %%email.unsub%%
> >
>
>
> —
> You are currently subscribed to ntdev as:
> xxxxx@hollistech.com To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> %%email.unsub%%
>
You are currently subscribed to ntdev as: xxxxx@royatech.com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to %%email.unsub%%
Ah, you forgot to mention that this is a bridge device. NT wants to manage PCI bridge devices
by itself, you should only be concerned with devices on the secondary bus behind the bridge.
-----Original Message-----
From: Tomer Goldberg
To: “NT Developers Interest List”
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 15:55:33 +0200
Subject: [ntdev] RE: Multifunction and PnP #2
>
> Your opinion is noted but I’m afraid
> there’s nothing much I can do about it.
> This bridge is an of the shelf chip
> of one of the best bridge and system controller
> companies.
>
> well anyway I see we’re both in the fog here
> about the pnp scenario in this case…and I
> tried to avoid distinguishing by BAR types and
> sizes but if that’s what I have to go for than I will.
>
> Cheers,
> Tom.
>
> BTW I liked the article about IRP_MN_QUERY_INTERFACE
> very useful
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mark Roddy [mailto:xxxxx@hollistech.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 12:43 PM
> > To: NT Developers Interest List
> > Subject: [ntdev] RE: Multifunction and PnP #2
> >
> >
> > My opinion is that this is bad design and might even be out
> > of spec for
> > PCI. On the other hand, I actually don’t know why this is
> > bad. However,
> > if it is allowed then yes if your board has three functions, F0/F1/F2
> > then you will get called at AddDevice three times per board. You will
> > have three PDO’s, and perhaps three FDOs to go with them. You
> > will have
> > to distinguish the PDOs based on their PCI address.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
> > > [mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Tomer
> Goldberg
> > > Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 4:06 AM
> > > To: NT Developers Interest List
> > > Subject: [ntdev] Multifunction and PnP #2
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks for the replies guys.
> > >
> > > Regarding the first issue,
> > > its not that it is a badly designed
> > > mapping, it has to support quite a lot
> > > of mapped resources. way above common
> > > designs.
> > >
> > > I see from the discussion that I dropped
> > > an important piece of information.
> > > The VID/DID on each header is the same.
> > > Does that still means multiple FDO’s
> > > created via multiple calls to AddDevice ?
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Roddy, Mark [mailto:xxxxx@stratus.com]
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 9:39 PM
> > > > To: NT Developers Interest List
> > > > Subject: [ntdev] Re: Multifunction and PnP
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Good point. I should have said: ‘barring developer idiocy’,
> > > > rather than ‘not
> > > > ever’ In the future I’ll stick with the Gilbert&Sullivan
> > > > version: ‘well
> > > > hardly ever’.
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Gary G. Little [mailto:xxxxx@broadstor.com]
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 3:10 PM
> > > > > To: NT Developers Interest List
> > > > > Subject: [ntdev] Re: Multifunction and PnP
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Mark,
> > > > >
> > > > > I wouldn’t say “You do not ever get more than one instance of
> > > > > your driver”. I have managed to do that a few times. By
> > > > > changing the names of sys files and having multiple services
> > > > > in the registry before I had completely changed the names of
> > > > > everything everywhere. … It was one of those “Veddy
> > > > > interesting …” bugs.
> > > > >
> > > > > –
> > > > > Gary G. Little
> > > > > xxxxx@broadstor.com
> > > > > xxxxx@inland.net
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > —
> > > > > You are currently subscribed to ntdev as:
> > > > > xxxxx@stratus.com To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> > > > > %%email.unsub%%
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > —
> > > > You are currently subscribed to ntdev as: xxxxx@royatech.com To
> > > > unsubscribe send a blank email to %%email.unsub%%
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > —
> > > You are currently subscribed to ntdev as:
> > > xxxxx@hollistech.com To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> > > %%email.unsub%%
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > —
> > You are currently subscribed to ntdev as: xxxxx@royatech.com
> > To unsubscribe send a blank email to %%email.unsub%%
> >
>
>
> —
> You are currently subscribed to ntdev as: xxxxx@hollistech.com
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to %%email.unsub%%