On Sun, Dec 09, 2007 at 06:24:51PM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > If that is the case though (that is it can't issue low ioport cycles), > how would have the fd6e7321... worked in the first place ? Hrm... > strange. My understanding is that all that patch does is put junk in the > pci_dev resource structures :-) Maybe that's enough to cause the PCI > layer later on to be unhappy about them and reassign the BARs to some > place that works ? In which case, you are right, a better approach is a > quirk on this specific platform, or even better, mark 0...0x10000000 > busy in ioport_resources and let the generic code clash & re-assign... > > I must admit I'm a bit confused tho... > > Anyway, so far, nobody is arguing in favor of keeping this patch in nor > so far trying and explanation on why it wouldn't be totally bogus, so I > suggest we revert it :-)
I certainly don't oppose at this point. Ralf -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/