linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Reverting old hack

To: Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>
Subject: Re: Reverting old hack
From: Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@hp.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 09:59:56 -0700
Cc: Yoichi Yuasa <yuasa@linux-mips.org>, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
In-reply-to: <20100224164100.GD5130@linux-mips.org>
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
References: <20100220113134.GA27194@linux-mips.org> <20100224090333.44a16d0a.yuasa@linux-mips.org> <20100224164100.GD5130@linux-mips.org>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
User-agent: KMail/1.9.10
On Wednesday 24 February 2010 09:41:00 am Ralf Baechle wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 09:03:33AM +0900, Yoichi Yuasa wrote:
> 
> > > approach Ben suggested long ago:
> > >     http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=119733290624544&w=2
> > 
> > It works fine with 2.6.34 queue tree.
> > pci.c change is already committed by Ralf.
> 
> Which I just dropped from queue.  To keep the tree bisectable removal of
> the old hack and adding the fixup should be done in the same patch so I'd
> go for Bjorn's patch.

Right, thanks.

> There is another somewhat theoretical correctness issue.  Because the
> VIA SuperIO chip only decodes 24 bits of address space but port address
> space currently being configured as 32MB there is the theoretical
> possibility of I/O port addresses that alias with legacy addresses getting
> allocated.

Does this mean my comment:

+        * but the VT82C586 IDE controller does respond at 0x100001f0 because
+        * it only decodes the low 16 bits of the address.

should say "24 bits" instead of "16 bits"?

Bjorn


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>