Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 16:35:07 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 16:34:57 -0500 Received: from jurassic.park.msu.ru ([195.208.223.243]:17925 "EHLO jurassic.park.msu.ru") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 16:34:49 -0500 Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 00:29:22 +0300 From: Ivan Kokshaysky To: Gerard Roudier Cc: Richard Henderson , axp-list@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: PCI-PCI bridges mess in 2.4.x Message-ID: <20001111002922.A1348@jurassic.park.msu.ru> In-Reply-To: <20001110021723.A4142@jurassic.park.msu.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i In-Reply-To: ; from groudier@club-internet.fr on Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 07:35:41PM +0100 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 07:35:41PM +0100, Gerard Roudier wrote: > I only have spec 1.0 on paper. I should have checked 1.1. Anyway, it may > still exist bridges that have been designed prior to spec. 1.1. Yes, DEC 2105x bridges, for example. The only update listed in revision history is "Update to include target initial latency requirements", so this (base > limit) stuff must be in rev. 1.0 as well. Please check chapters 3.2.5.[6,8,9]. > > > I/O is slightly different because it's optional for the bridge - > > but if it's implemented same rules apply. > > Will also check the spec. on this point. :) Also, according the spec, we need some paranoia checks ;-) 1. check if the bridge has an I/O window not implemented 2. if the bridge has regular BARs, allocate them properly on the primary bus. Ivan. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/