On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 13:34:51 +0300
Ivan Kokshaysky <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 28, 2007 at 01:07:09AM -0500, Daniel Barkalow wrote:
> > So would always using conf1 for the non-extended space (unless the
> > platform only uses mmconfig), or at least for the first 64 bytes.
> > I'd bet all the subtle bugs are in the first few words, anyway.
> > (With blatant bugs in the rest, of course, where we want to
> > blacklist busses and devices)
>
> Yes. Though limiting conf1 to the first 64 bytes is simply not worth
> a pain - we would still have to deal with buses that are unreachable
> via mmconf.
>
> Always using legacy configuration mechanism for the legacy config
> space and extended mechanism (mmconf) for the extended config space
> is a simple and very logical approach. It's supposed to resolve *all*
> known mmconf problems. And it still allows per-device quirks
> (tweaking dev->cfg_size). And it does *remove* code, not add anything
> new/untested.
>
it removes code by removing quirks / known not working stuff..
I really don't like it.. sorry.
--
If you want to reach me at my work email, use [email protected]
For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
--
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]
