From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 28 Jun 2001 00:22:26 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 28 Jun 2001 00:22:17 -0400 Received: from [32.97.182.104] ([32.97.182.104]:20199 "EHLO e4.ny.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 28 Jun 2001 00:22:03 -0400 Message-ID: <3B3A3BB5.22E2D78@vnet.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 15:01:58 -0500 From: Tom Gall X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "David S. Miller" CC: Jeff Garzik , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: RFC: Changes for PCI In-Reply-To: <3B3A58FC.2728DAFF@vnet.ibm.com> <3B3A5B00.9FF387C9@mandrakesoft.com> <20010628091704.B23627@krispykreme> <15162.33445.396761.71174@pizda.ninka.net> <3B3A2ABC.B9B4CEB6@vnet.ibm.com> <15162.44330.558687.314786@pizda.ninka.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org "David S. Miller" wrote: > Tom Gall writes: > > "David S. Miller" wrote: > > > > > Looks, ppc64 is really still experimental right? > > > > Heck no. > > So it is so stable that it isn't even merged into the mainline 2.4.x > sources? :-) Heh... > > We're talking about a port which doesn't even exist in the mainline > sources yet. Just about there...finger crossed, Maintainers willing, etc etc. > > > Which means it is > > > 2.5.x material, and 2.5.x has been quoted as being a week or two away. > > > > I sure hope that ppc64 is NOT considered 2.5.x material. > > No, I'm saying that ppc64 with >=256 physical PCI busses, is 2.5.x > material. Well, if that's what we gotta live with, then that's what we gotta live with. Viva la 2.5 then! > > A real solution would be nice. And if the real solution can ONLY be in 2.5, then > > is it such a bad idea moving the bus number type to unsigned int for 2.4.x? > > Yes, no kludges for 2.4.x Understood and agreed. > Look, I do not even feel for you. > > I waited patiently for a sane PCI dma architecture so I could support > >4GB ram on 64-bit PCI systems (sparc64, alpha, etc.). And it was > worth the wait, most of the important PCI drivers fully use this > interface, and it was all done properly. Yeah and I understand and appreciate that just for the matter of the device driver owners making sure they are inline with the new direction. > > Similarly you can wait for 2.5.x for >=256 physical PCI bus support. > Ok? Rather not, but if that's the decision, I'm happy to live by it. That why I posted this as an RFC, and I appreciate everyone's time, patience and feedback. Regards, Tom -- Tom Gall - PPC64 Maintainer "Where's the ka-boom? There was Linux Technology Center supposed to be an earth (w) tom_gall@vnet.ibm.com shattering ka-boom!" (w) 507-253-4558 -- Marvin Martian (h) tgall@rochcivictheatre.org http://www.ibm.com/linux/ltc/projects/ppc