Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 15:32:16 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 15:32:16 -0400 Received: from zeus.kernel.org ([204.152.189.113]:20115 "EHLO zeus.kernel.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 15:32:14 -0400 Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 15:35:49 -0400 (EDT) From: "Scott Murray" X-X-Sender: To: David Woodhouse cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: RFC: PCI hotplug resource reservation In-Reply-To: <13500.1028746964@redhat.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1199 Lines: 36 On Wed, 7 Aug 2002, David Woodhouse wrote: > > scottm@somanetworks.com said: > > > > On power-up, the system must be automatically configured so that > > each device's IO and memory functions occupy mutually-exclusive address > > > > Device not bridge? My take is that a bridge is a PCI device which just happens to have extra BARs that must be considered. Skimming through "Chapter 24: PCI-to-PCI Bridge" of "PCI System Architecture, 4th Edition" (most notably page 568 - "Address Decode-Related Registers"), the words "mutually-exclusive" occur every time resource ranges are discussed. I think the implications are pretty strong that programming bridges with conflicting ranges will result in undefined behaviour. Even if it did work, doing so also has the potential to open us up to new classes of bridge hardware bugs that no one has seen before. Scott -- Scott Murray SOMA Networks, Inc. Toronto, Ontario e-mail: scottm@somanetworks.com - 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/