From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-Id: <199908121730.TAA03489@piglet.cpu.lu> Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 19:30:24 +0200 (CEST) From: Michel Lanners Reply-To: mlan@cpu.lu Subject: Re: Trying a Promise Ultra/66 on powerpc To: Geert.Uytterhoeven@cs.kuleuven.ac.be cc: Paul.Mackerras@cs.anu.edu.au, drow@false.org, mj@ucw.cz, linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: On 10 Aug, this message from Geert Uytterhoeven echoed through cyberspace: >> One way might be to adjust the base addresses in all the pci_dev >> structs and then make sure all drivers use the address from the >> pci_dev struct rather than reading config space themselves. > > Which will make our /proc/ioports look funny. [mlan@piglet ~]$ cat /proc/ioports f2000480-f2000487 : ide2 f2000488-f200048f : ide3 f2000490-f20004bf : PDC20262 I don't see why this would be funny.... except if you're used to the PeeCee definition of IO ports being below 64 k ;-)) In any case, I still find it much better to adjust pci_dev, than to play with offsets in inb()/outb(). But most important, adjusting struct pci_dev is the only way I see to support IO space on more than one host bridge. Michel ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Michel Lanners | " Read Philosophy. Study Art. 23, Rue Paul Henkes | Ask Questions. Make Mistakes. L-1710 Luxembourg | email mlan@cpu.lu | http://www.cpu.lu/~mlan | Learn Always. " [[ This message was sent via the linuxppc-dev mailing list. Replies are ]] [[ not forced back to the list, so be sure to Cc linuxppc-dev if your ]] [[ reply is of general interest. Please check http://lists.linuxppc.org/ ]] [[ and http://www.linuxppc.org/ for useful information before posting. ]]