On Sun, Dec 09, 2007 at 06:24:51PM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> If that is the case though (that is it can't issue low ioport cycles),
> how would have the fd6e7321... worked in the first place ? Hrm...
> strange. My understanding is that all that patch does is put junk in the
> pci_dev resource structures :-) Maybe that's enough to cause the PCI
> layer later on to be unhappy about them and reassign the BARs to some
> place that works ? In which case, you are right, a better approach is a
> quirk on this specific platform, or even better, mark 0...0x10000000
> busy in ioport_resources and let the generic code clash & re-assign...
>
> I must admit I'm a bit confused tho...
>
> Anyway, so far, nobody is arguing in favor of keeping this patch in nor
> so far trying and explanation on why it wouldn't be totally bogus, so I
> suggest we revert it :-)
I certainly don't oppose at this point.
Ralf
--
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]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
