[lkml]   [2006]   [Nov]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: 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.


Dave Olson
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2006-11-07 21:33    [W:0.081 / U:3.708 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site