Philip Blundell said:
> >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.
It is the way that I intend it. I don't see that you have to
agree, it's just the way it was meant from the outset.
--
Russell King ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
unsubscribe: body of `unsubscribe linux-arm' to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
