[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49B1C8C1.4090304@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2009 17:07:13 -0800
From: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
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:
> 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?
Yes.
YH
--
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