From: David Weinehall <tao@acc.umu.se>
To: Robert Love <rml@tech9.net>
Cc: Christof Efkemann <efkemann@uni-bremen.de>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Intel 830 support for agpgart
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 02:16:58 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20011003021658.O7800@khan.acc.umu.se> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20011002033227.6e047544.efkemann@uni-bremen.de> <1001988137.2780.53.camel@phantasy> <20011002151051.488306ee.efkemann@uni-bremen.de> <1002066345.1003.66.camel@phantasy>
In-Reply-To: <1002066345.1003.66.camel@phantasy>; from rml@tech9.net on Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 07:45:42PM -0400
On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 07:45:42PM -0400, Robert Love wrote:
> On Tue, 2001-10-02 at 09:10, Christof Efkemann wrote:
> > Yes, that seems to work as well. Although there are two minor things I
> > noticed:
> > - First, intel_generic_setup sets num_aperture_sizes to 7, while the i830
> > has only 4 valid values (32 to 256 MB).
> > - Second, when intel_generic_configure clears the error status register, it
> > resets bits 8, 9 and 10. With an i830 it should clear bits 2, 3 and 4.
> >
> > So I'm not sure if this works in general, or could it cause errors on other
> > systems?
>
> It will probably work fine on all systems, but its not the right way to
> go IMO. Your original implementation was better.
>
> However, I am still disliking the multiple function idea. Same thing
> with the i840. The only real difference is those defines.
>
> A _very_ simple solution, IF we had separate CONFIG statements for each
> i8xx (or at least one for i830, one for i840, and one for the rest)
> would be:
>
> /* all the normal defines here */
> #ifdef CONFIG_AGP_I830
> #undef whatever_define_i830_is_different_on
> #define whatever xxx
> /* etc */
> #endif
> #ifdef CONFIG_AGP_I840
> #undef whatever
> #define whatever xxx
> /* etc */
> #endif
>
> and then, voila, we have but one setup function! we can remove all the
> unique i830 and i840 muck...
>
> Is seperate config statements a problem? We already have multiple ones
> for the i810/i815 on/off-board versions...Hmm.
If the only differences between the different cards are the nr of
aperture-sizes and the status-register settings, why not have a struct
which contains all the valid cards, and use a scan-routine?!
/David Weinehall
_ _
// David Weinehall <tao@acc.umu.se> /> Northern lights wander \\
// Project MCA Linux hacker // Dance across the winter sky //
\> http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ </ Full colour fire </
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-10-03 0:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-10-02 1:32 [PATCH] Intel 830 support for agpgart Christof Efkemann
2001-10-02 2:02 ` Robert Love
2001-10-02 13:10 ` Christof Efkemann
2001-10-02 23:45 ` Robert Love
2001-10-03 0:16 ` David Weinehall [this message]
2001-10-03 2:20 ` Robert Love
2001-10-03 2:52 ` David Weinehall
2001-10-03 11:55 ` Christof Efkemann
2001-10-06 23:47 ` Paul Mundt
2001-10-07 1:30 ` Wenzhuo Zhang
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20011003021658.O7800@khan.acc.umu.se \
--to=tao@acc.umu.se \
--cc=efkemann@uni-bremen.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rml@tech9.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox