On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 22:29:23 -0500
Tony Camuso wrote:> . There is no need to provide different PCI config access
This ignores the "lets make it not matter for the 99% of the users" case.
not "conf1" but "what the platform thinks is the best method for < 256".
We have this nice abstraction for the platform to select the best method... we should use it.
And still, it's another attempt to get this fixed (well.. it's been 2 years in the coming so far, maybe this will
be the last one, maybe it will not be... we'll see I suppose, but it sucks to be a user who doesn't
need any of the functionality that the extended config space provides in theory but gets to suffer more of the issues)
I'm all in favor of making this more reliable, but really..
we've thought it was fixed time and time again over the last two years. Please consider
limiting the scope of the damage as well.
--
If you want to reach me at my work email, use arjan@linux.intel.com
For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
--
| david | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Greg Kroah-Hartman | [PATCH 001/196] Chinese: Add the known_regression URI to the HOWTO |
| Trent Piepho | Re: [PATCH] [POWERPC] Improve (in|out)_beXX() asm code |
| Steven Rostedt | Re: -rt scheduling: wakeup bug? |
| Andrew Morton | Re: [BUG] New Kernel Bugs |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 0/37] dccp: Feature negotiation - last call for comments |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
git: | |
