Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 7 Nov 2006 12:30:25 -0800 (PST) | From | Dave Olson <> | Subject | Re: 2.6.19-rc4: known unfixed regressions (v3) |
| |
On Tue, 7 Nov 2006, Eric W. Biederman wrote: | > | If your card doesn't pay attention to configuration space access cycles then | > | there should be no reason to write the value there. If your card does pay | > | attention to the configuration space access cycles it should be trivial to | > | make this work. | > | > The card does pay attention, and other programs such as lspci and the | > like also look at the config space. They should definitely be kept | > in sync, and config writes are fairly cheap, anyway. | | Well this is a rathole so it really isn't safe for lspci to play with | (races with the kernel accessing it)
Displaying something that might change is a fact of life, and no different than the PCI world. It's still best to keep things as correct as possible.
| This hole concept of you having the register but not connecting it up on | the card is rather bizarre.
The HT core we use made it extremely difficult, unfortunately. One of those things in hardware you sometimes just have to live with.
| > The HT layer should always do the config updates, since you are trying | > to clean up that layer. Only the "extra" stuff (if any) should be done by | > the callback. | | Fine by me. That's why the patch was up for review. That is just moving | the if statement I currently have. So it should be trivial. If that | won't break your card that is good enough for me.
Thanks,
Dave Olson dave.olson@qlogic.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/
| |