[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49B1C81B.5010904@zytor.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2009 17:04:27 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
CC: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/pci: try to detect host_bridge pci_cfg_space
H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> Impact: get correct pci_cfg_size for host_bridge
>>
>> more host bridges support 4k cfg, so check them directly
>> instead of quirks.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
>
> I'm utterly confused by this. This is basically saying we should try to
> probe for an extended device space for every host bridge. Logically
> speaking, this is valid: if there is a valid path by which we can probe
> for byte 256 then it should succeed.
>
> HOWEVER, the same argument applies for *every single device*. So if
> this does indeed work, why should we limit it to host bridges?
>
Looking at the code (as opposed to just the patch) made it a bit
clearer. The argument you're making here is that only host bridges are
known to have extended address space without also having a PCI-X
extension header, right?
-hpa
--
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