On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 13:34:51 +0300 Ivan Kokshaysky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 28, 2007 at 01:07:09AM -0500, Daniel Barkalow wrote: > > So would always using conf1 for the non-extended space (unless the > > platform only uses mmconfig), or at least for the first 64 bytes. > > I'd bet all the subtle bugs are in the first few words, anyway. > > (With blatant bugs in the rest, of course, where we want to > > blacklist busses and devices) > > Yes. Though limiting conf1 to the first 64 bytes is simply not worth > a pain - we would still have to deal with buses that are unreachable > via mmconf. > > Always using legacy configuration mechanism for the legacy config > space and extended mechanism (mmconf) for the extended config space > is a simple and very logical approach. It's supposed to resolve *all* > known mmconf problems. And it still allows per-device quirks > (tweaking dev->cfg_size). And it does *remove* code, not add anything > new/untested. > it removes code by removing quirks / known not working stuff.. I really don't like it.. sorry. -- If you want to reach me at my work email, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] For development, discussion and tips for power savings, visit http://www.lesswatts.org -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
