[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080326220738.060d00ef@core>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 22:07:38 +0000
From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: benh@...nel.crashing.org
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@...assic.park.msu.ru>,
Gary Hade <garyhade@...ibm.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Meyer <thomas@...3r.de>,
Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Natalie Protasevich <protasnb@...il.com>, pm@...ian.org
Subject: Re: [patch] pci: revert "PCI: remove transparent bridge sizing"
> PCI bridges at zero is perfectly valid indeed and I'm sure we have that
> around at least for IO space. In fact, I'm surprised you don't have that
> on x86. Typically, things like an HT segment with a P2P bridge and
> behind that bridge an ISA bridge could well have the P2P bridge with a
> resource forwarding 0...0x1000 IO downstream for example even on x86
> no ? (I'm not -that- familiar with the crazyness of legacy ISA on x86
> but I've definitely seen such setup on other archs).
On a PC system 0x00-0xFF are motherboard resources (sometimes chipset,
some even swallowed by the CPU in certain cases) so 0 as disabled is sort
of safe but as shown by the pci_enable_device_bars replacement code - not
a good idea neccessarily.
A lot of driver code does assume 0 == unavailable/off/disabled including
large chunks of serial, ata, ide and probably other subsystems.
Alan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists