>I don't think that the EBSA285 port should concern itself
>as to the state of the Central function bit in the control
>register, because this port is only meant for the SA110
>running as the central function. The co285 port is for
>'add-in' cards without the central function bit set.
I don't agree. Unless you can think of a way in which the change will
actually harm anything I think it ought to go in regardless. The situation
might well arise in which you want a machine similar to the EBSA-285 in every
respect except that it's not in charge of PCI configuration. The co285 port,
as far as I know, changes other things to do with memory mapping that won't
always be desirable.
In any case, keeping the co285 and EBSA-285 ports as close together as
possible can only be a good thing. If a check like this allows them to share
the hw-ebsa285 code then all the better.
p.
unsubscribe: body of `unsubscribe linux-arm' to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
