On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 08:01:01 -0500 Tony Camuso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 22:29:23 -0500 > > Tony Camuso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> . There is no need to provide different PCI config access > >> mechanisms at device granularity, since the PCI config access > >> mechanism between the CPU and the Northbridge is opaque to > >> the devices. PCI config mechanisms only need to differ at > >> the Northbridge level. > > > > This ignores the "lets make it not matter for the 99% of the users" > > case. > > I don't understand. That;s clear :) > 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. -- 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/
