Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 12:30:47 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 12:30:28 -0500 Received: from ztxmail03.ztx.compaq.com ([161.114.1.207]:6918 "HELO ztxmail03.ztx.compaq.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 12:30:18 -0500 Message-ID: <8C91B010B3B7994C88A266E1A72184D3116FD6@cceexc19.americas.cpqcorp.net> From: "Zink, Dan" To: "'Jeff Garzik'" , Tim Wright Cc: Adam Lackorzynski , Jan-Benedict Glaw , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: RE: PCI bridge handling 2.4.0-test10 -> 2.4.2-pre3 Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 11:30:20 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2652.78) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Does it make sense to try and keep up with the latest and greatest in chipsets when there is a hardware independent way of doing things? You may be able to get information on current chipsets, but every time something changes, the kernel may be broken for a time. If we rely on the BIOS, the kernel can stay out of the chipset information race. I understand the reluctance to depend on BIOS in general but isn't it safe to say that systems using the ServerWorks chipsets in question are likely servers with a non-broken BIOS? I can tell you that if the BIOS doesn't report this stuff right on a ProLiant server, it would never make it out the door. It would break too many things to go unnoticed. From this standpoint, the kernel is less likely to break if it relies on the BIOS rather than assuming some particular chipset design that can easily change in the future. This is a fundamental reason for the BIOS's existence. Dan -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Garzik [mailto:jgarzik@mandrakesoft.mandrakesoft.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 11:12 AM To: Tim Wright Cc: Adam Lackorzynski; Jan-Benedict Glaw; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Zink, Dan Subject: Re: PCI bridge handling 2.4.0-test10 -> 2.4.2-pre3 On Tue, 13 Feb 2001, Tim Wright wrote: > I believe that, in general, we want working fixup routines so the we don't > have to rely on the BIOS. That said, it's apparent that the ServerWorks > routines are broken. Fixing them is going to be troublesome, given ServerWorks > attitude towards releasing specs. It's on my list of things to try to sort out, > since some of the Netfinities I use are ServerWorks based. We can get tech info on ServerWorks... just ask specific questions, and hardware contacts etc. will do the rest. Jeff - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/