On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 10:23:14 -0500
Tony Camuso <tcamuso@redhat.com> wrote:

quoted text
> Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 08:01:01 -0500
> > Tony Camuso <tcamuso@redhat.com> 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/