From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Fri, 05 Dec 2008 18:08:16 +0000 (GMT) Received: from h4.dl5rb.org.uk ([81.2.74.4]:38832 "EHLO ditditdahdahdah-dahdahdahditdit.dl5rb.org.uk") by ftp.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S24145211AbYLESIH (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Dec 2008 18:08:07 +0000 Received: from denk.linux-mips.net (denk.linux-mips.net [127.0.0.1]) by ditditdahdahdah-dahdahdahditdit.dl5rb.org.uk (8.14.2/8.14.1) with ESMTP id mB5I86ef019657; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 18:08:06 GMT Received: (from ralf@localhost) by denk.linux-mips.net (8.14.2/8.14.2/Submit) id mB5I86th019655; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 18:08:06 GMT Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 18:08:06 +0000 From: Ralf Baechle To: Arnaud Patard Cc: linux-mips@linux-mips.org Subject: Re: xorg-server-1.5.2 doesn't work because of missing sysfs pci resource files Message-ID: <20081205180806.GA19217@linux-mips.org> References: <20081205154339.GA14327@adriano.hkcable.com.hk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 21534 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: ralf@linux-mips.org Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-mips On Fri, Dec 05, 2008 at 06:59:35PM +0100, Arnaud Patard wrote: Arnaud, > > Then I tried to read kernel code. I found it seems that for mips linux to have > > this file, HAVE_PCI_MMAP must be defined. However, it is currently not defined. > > > > Since I am not familiar with PCI, yet. > > So could someone please shed some light on this? > > Why HAVE_PCI_MMAP is not defined? > > HAVE_PCI_MMAP must be defined when you have a pci_mmap_page_range() > function (see Documentation/filesystems/sysfs-pci.txt) and we don't have > a pci_mmap_page_range() on mips. Correct - but if the code is not present the kernel does not use an alternative implementation. I just looked into implementing that and it seems nothing that I could do quickly to still get it into 2.6.28, sorry ... Ralf