On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 10:23:14 -0500

Tony Camuso  wrote:
> Arjan van de Ven wrote:

quoted text
> > On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 08:01:01 -0500

> > Tony Camuso  wrote:

>  >>

> >> 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.

> >

>

> The problem with compelling device drivers to determine the PCI

> config mechanism is that it must be forced upon arches that

> have no PCI configuration quirks or don't even use the same

> PCI config mechanisms as x86.

it's not pci_enable_mmconf(), it's pci_enable_extended_config_space... it's independent of the mechanism!
>

quoted text
> I don't think that's a good policy.

>

> Better to confine arch-specific quirks to the arch-specific code

> whenever possible.

> 

--

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/