Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 10:40:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> To: Bruce M Simpson <bms@spc.org> Cc: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/dev/pci pci.c Message-ID: <20040522103854.I58631@root.org> In-Reply-To: <20040521134038.GE90068@empiric.dek.spc.org> References: <200405210636.i4L6aadV059034@repoman.freebsd.org> <40ADAF07.2070909@freebsd.org> <20040521.020412.118756775.imp@bsdimp.com> <40ADBC15.6040004@freebsd.org> <20040521134038.GE90068@empiric.dek.spc.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 21 May 2004, Bruce M Simpson wrote: > On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 02:21:41AM -0600, Scott Long wrote: > > Well, the 8.3.3 paragraph only specifically mentions the command > > register and the BARs. I'm just worried that by touching stuff outside > > of this range that you open up the risk of tickling latent buggy > > silicon. Exception cases like the ATA hardware doing magic things with > > the progif register should be left up to the ATA driver. It's exactly > > those kinds of bent-rules that makes me nervous =-) > > Maybe this behaviour could be enabled or disabled with an instance variable? > I can think of one example of hardware which might need this. I owned an > IBM ThinkPad T22 with an xl(4) NIC for about a year, and one of the things > which annoyed me about suspend/resume was the tendency for it to lose its > PCI configuration. Yes, this almost certainly required it. The question is whether any PCI device could be broken from excessive poking of its config space. I really doubt this. -Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040522103854.I58631>