On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 08:01:01 -0500
Tony Camuso <tcamuso@redhat.com> wrote:

quoted text
> Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 22:29:23 -0500
> > Tony Camuso <tcamuso@redhat.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> . There is no need to provide different PCI config access
> >>    mechanisms at device granularity, since the PCI config access
> >>    mechanism between the CPU and the Northbridge is opaque to
> >>    the devices. PCI config mechanisms only need to differ at
> >>    the Northbridge level.
> > 
> > This ignores the "lets make it not matter for the 99% of the users"
> > case.
> 
> I don't understand. 

That;s clear :)

quoted text
> If we're going to differentiate MMCONFIG from
> some other access mechanism, it only needs to be done at the
> Northbridge level. Devices are electrically ignorant of the protocol
> used between CPU and Northbridge to get the Northbridge to assert
> config cycles on the bus.

Again this is about having systems that don't need extended config space not use it. At all.
The only way to do that is have the drivers say they need it, and not use it otherwise.
It has NOTHING to do with how things are wired up. It's pure a kernel level policy decision
about whether to use extended config space AT ALL.



-- 
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
--
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/