On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 10:23:14 -0500 Tony Camuso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 08:01:01 -0500 > > Tony Camuso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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! > > 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 [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/