[lkml]   [2003]   [Mar]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: PCI and MWI
Ivan Kokshaysky wrote:
> David Brownell wrote:
>> I wonder if it might not be best to
>>have cpuinfo_x86 store that value; people don't really expect
>>to see cpu-specific logic in the pci code.
> Don't know. The cpuinfo_x86 is per-CPU thing, while pci_cache_line_size
> is definitely system-wide.

So pci_cache_line_size = max (all L1 cacheline sizes in the system)
with some possible fudging (that i486 issue, etc). But your patch
would seem to handle most archs correctly already.

>>One minor curiousity: a multifunction device seemed to share
>>PCI_CACHE_LINE_SIZE between the enabled/active function and ones
>>without a driver. Makes sense, the values can never legally
>>differ, but some more troublesome devices don't do that...
> Hmm, we treat each function as an independent PCI device, as per PCI
> spec. Sharing the config space between functions sounds like a severe
> hardware bug. Do you have any examples?

I just happened to notice _this specific case_ which as I mentioned
sure doesn't feel like a hardware bug to me! The specific device
was a Philips ISP 1561 USB 2.0 controller (two OHCI one EHCI), and
the two more troublesome (less forgiving) devices were from VIA.

So that machine had quite a few high speed USB controllers (including
a NetChip 2280 :) running Linux, all using MWI and no particular
problems being visible ... and no messages about broken BIOS setup.

>>Re Jeff's suggestion to merge this to 2.5 ASAP, sounds right
>>to me if all the arch code gets worked out up front. I have
>>no problem with the idea of enabling it as done here (when
>>the device is enabled) rather than waiting to enable DMA,
>>though I'd certainly pay attention to people who know about
>>devices broken enough to get indigestion that way.
> Well, in 2.4 on Alpha and ARM we still have pdev_enable_device() thing
> which is the mostly __init-only variant of the pci_enable_device(),
> but it also forces correct cacheline size and reasonable (more or less)
> latency timer for *all* devices. Nobody had problems with it over the last
> 2 years, so I believe that setting cacheline size in pci_enable_device()
> rather than in pci_set_master() is the right thing (and agrees with the
> spec better).

Sounds good to me then.

- Dave

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: 2005-03-22 13:33    [W:0.025 / U:0.260 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site