On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 03:34:54AM +0400, Ivan Kokshaysky wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 10:46:20PM +0100, Russell King wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 09:05:55PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > 64-bit BARs work fine on 64-bit machines. I'm ambivalent whether we
> > > ought to support 64-bit BARs on 32-bit machines.
> >
> > This only occurs because the problematical functions (eg,
> > pci_update_resource) probably aren't called on 64-bit machines - if
> > they were, they'd zero the upper 32-bits. Maybe 64-bit machines are
> > happy with that anyway?
>
> Why problematical? It's just the way how linux has always dealt with
> 64-bit BARs - put everything below 4G in the bus address space, on *any*
> architecture. I'd be quite surprised if some firmware doesn't do the same
> thing - so far I haven't heard any complaints.
If this is so, Grant's concern about programming the top half of 64-bit
resources with zero isn't appropriate. However, he did raise this as
an issue...
--
Russell King
Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
maintainer of: 2.6 Serial core
-
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |