Re: RFC: Changes for PCI

From: Tom Gall (
Date: Wed Jun 27 2001 - 15:01:58 EST

"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? :-)


> 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.



Tom Gall - PPC64 Maintainer      "Where's the ka-boom? There was
Linux Technology Center           supposed to be an earth
(w)         shattering ka-boom!"
(w) 507-253-4558                 -- Marvin Martian

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to More majordomo info at Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jun 30 2001 - 21:00:18 EST