From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86_64: Define 128-bit memory-mapped I/O operations
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 10:12:36 -0700
Message-ID: <50351304.20608@zytor.com>
References: <1345598601.2659.76.camel@bwh-desktop.uk.solarflarecom.com>  <503437D4.8090706@zytor.com>  <1345601051.2659.93.camel@bwh-desktop.uk.solarflarecom.com>  <20120821.193446.1534561579811962053.davem@davemloft.net>  <503450E2.2040504@zytor.com>  <CA+55aFy=ohFoZ1yZGdj1DCcNXU9gsndgH9Qod4q8+s=sbGKUzQ@mail.gmail.com>  <1345642009.15245.0.camel@deadeye.wl.decadent.org.uk>  <CA+55aFzxhxjOeFSUUJ6XQGUmnaZf7QPSz611zmj2VziEDUB_sA@mail.gmail.com>  <1345645499.15245.8.camel@deadeye.wl.decadent.org.uk>  <20120822143054.GD9803@kvack.org>  <1345647537.2709.0.camel@bwh-desktop.uk.solarflarecom.com>  <5034F725.2090802@zytor.com>  <AE90C24D6B3A694183C094C60CF0A2F6026B6FC1@saturn3.aculab.com>  <1345650689.2709.32.camel@bwh-desktop.uk.solarflarecom.com>  <50350098.6030100@zytor.com>  <1345653844.2709.5
 1.camel@bwh-desktop.uk.solarflarecom.com>  <CA+55aFxMD-Jn3fPgum7a+3EhNiWB-Mjv+1yamR7ELHwroA_+7Q@mail.gmail.com> <1345655343.2709.56.camel@bwh-desktop.uk.solarflarecom.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com>,
	Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@kvack.org>,
	David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>, tglx@linutronix.de,
	mingo@redhat.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-net-drivers@solarflare.com, x86@kernel.org
To: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@solarflare.com>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:44309 "EHLO mail.zytor.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1756897Ab2HVRMz (ORCPT <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 22 Aug 2012 13:12:55 -0400
In-Reply-To: <1345655343.2709.56.camel@bwh-desktop.uk.solarflarecom.com>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On 08/22/2012 10:09 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>
> Well, sure, I'm assuming that the driver is responsible for checking
> that the device and its bus interface support an MMIO of the requested
> width.
>
> But the architecture code must be responsible for reporting whether the
> host supports it, right?
>

No, the architecture code *can't*.

	-hpa

-- 
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel.  I don't speak on their behalf.