From: Roland Dreier <rdreier@cisco.com>
To: ddutile@redhat.com
Cc: Krzysztof Halasa <khc@pm.waw.pl>,
Stefan Assmann <sassmann@redhat.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>,
kaneshige.kenji@jp.fujitsu.com, matthew@wil.cx
Subject: Re: GT/s vs Gbps for PCIe bus speed
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 13:50:17 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <adapr8p8zue.fsf@cisco.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4AD62B52.9060200@redhat.com> (Don Dutile's message of "Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:49:38 -0400")
FWIW, I think using the same nomenclature as the PCI-SIG documents is
probably the least confusing option. Inventing our own terminology that
conflicts with the "upstream" PCI specs is just going to confuse things,
even if the Linux terminology is "better." With that said:
> "66 MHz PCIX 533", /* 0x11 */
> "100 MHz PCIX 533", /* 0x12 */
> "133 MHz PCIX 533", /* 0x13 */
> "2.5 GT/s PCI-E", /* 0x14 */
> "5.0 GT/s PCI-E", /* 0x15 */
it is the case that PCI-SIG uses "PCI-X" and "PCIe" rather than "PCIX"
and "PCI-E". That naming would make sense to me as something to clean up.
The table of names also seems to be missing entries for PCI-X mode 1
with ECC, although I don't know if there ever was a system with a
device that actually used that mode.
- R.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-10-14 20:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-10-14 8:42 GT/s vs Gbps for PCIe bus speed Stefan Assmann
2009-10-14 18:51 ` Krzysztof Halasa
2009-10-14 19:49 ` Don Dutile
2009-10-14 20:50 ` Roland Dreier [this message]
2009-10-15 7:32 ` Kenji Kaneshige
2009-10-14 21:33 ` Krzysztof Halasa
2009-10-14 22:51 ` Don Dutile
2009-10-15 7:40 ` Roland Dreier
2009-10-15 14:05 ` Don Dutile
2009-10-15 17:58 ` Krzysztof Halasa
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=adapr8p8zue.fsf@cisco.com \
--to=rdreier@cisco.com \
--cc=ddutile@redhat.com \
--cc=jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org \
--cc=kaneshige.kenji@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=khc@pm.waw.pl \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=matthew@wil.cx \
--cc=sassmann@redhat.com \
/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