On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 09:33:54PM -0700, Grant Grundler wrote:
> > ISTR making comments before about the offending patch on linux-pci mailing
> > list. Is this the same patch that assumes pci_dev->resource[i] == BAR[i] ?
>
> I meant the patch assume 1:1 for pci_dev->resource[i] and BAR[i].
> not
In LinuxBIOS internal structure for resource, We have index member in resource.
So the resource will be count from 0, 7 or etc, but index member
will point to real BAR position.
I would like to see Kernel has simmliar definintion.
in LinuxBIOS
typedef uint64_t resource_t;
struct resource {
On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 04:03:00PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
...
> > yesterday, someone add pci_restore_bars, that will call
> > pci_update_resource, and it will overwirte upper 32 bit of BAR2 and
> > BAR4 of IB card.
>
> Hm, perhaps that change should not do this?
>
> Dominik, care to weigh in h
On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 04:59:37PM -0700, Grant Grundler wrote:
> ISTR making comments before about the offending patch on linux-pci mailing
> list. Is this the same patch that assumes pci_dev->resource[i] == BAR[i] ?
I meant the patch assume 1:1 for pci_dev->resource[i] and BAR[i].
not that the
On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 04:06:06PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 01:38:37PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > But what's the real problem we are trying to fix here?
>
> We're screwing up the top 32 bits of the BAR when you r
5 matches
Mail list logo
