Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
quoted text
> Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org> writes:
> 
>> Note that INTX_DISABLE is a recent addition to PCI.
> 
> It's PCI 2.3.

Yes.


quoted text
>>  Older PCI devices
>> support neither MSI nor INTX-disable, so make sure such devices don't
>> creep into your sample.
> 
> MSI has been introduced by PCI 2.2 (and thus PCI-X 1.0) so there may
> be devices with MSI but without INTx-disable bit. I guess I have some
> early PCI-X hardware with MSI but I don't know if they have INTx-disable
> bit and I can't currently test that.
> And it probably doesn't matter.

Time will tell :)


quoted text
>> In general it is documented that INTX_DISABLE should apply only to
>> INTx# so devices that disable MSI based on that bit are out of spec.
> 
> The wording is:
> 10: This bit disables the device from asserting INTx#. A value of 0
> enables the assertion of its INTx# signal. A value of 1 disables the
> assertion of its INTx# signal. This bit's state after RST# is 0. Refer
> to Section 6.8.1.3 for control of MSI.
> 
> So strictly speaking it mandates disabling/enabling INTx but says
> nothing about other things (e.g. MSI). Some common sense dictates
> it shouldn't disable MSI, I guess.
> 
> The "MSI Enable" description doesn't leave any doubt:
> 0: MSI Enable: If 1, the function is permitted to use MSI to request
> service and is prohibited from using its INTx# pin [...]

Right.  I was merely describing the end result, the union of that 
language as it applies to the kernel.

	Jeff


-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/