On 8 Jan 2003, Ray Lee wrote:
> > 1. which device is at port address 0xCFB? (please note, NOT 0xCF8)
>
> 0xcfb ('bee') is the fourth byte of the 32 bit register that sits/starts
> at 0xcf8 ('eight'). Note the difference in the code between the outb and
> outl calls.
>
> To answer your other questions, I think you'd have better luck reading
> the spec for the x86 pc-style PCI bridge chip, rather than the (generic)
> PCI v2.0 spec itself. The spec for the actual chip is always the final
> authority for what's going on. (Unless, of course, it's wrong...)
>
> Ray
>
The problem is that he's discovered something that's not supposed
to be in the code. Only 32-bit accesses are supposed to be made to
the PCI controller ports. He has discovered that somebody has made
some 8-bit accesses that will not become configuration 'transactions'
because they are not 32 bits. According to the spec, such accesses
become direct I/O to some underlying device. So, if some underlying
device shares the same I/O address space as the PCI device, that
machine is broken.
FYI, the mechanism by which ix86 hardware determines if the PCI
port access is a configuration read or configuration write is
the 32-bit access. Any other access cannot be interpreted by
the hardware as a configuration transaction. (Page 321.,
"Into to configuration Mechanisms", PCI System Architecture,
ISBN 0-201-30974-2)
It is possible that somebody had a bad board and found that writing
some junk to this port 'fixed' something. If this is so, then the
code needs some comments. Otherwise, the non-32bit accesses should
be removed.
Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.4.18 on an i686 machine (797.90 BogoMips).
Why is the government concerned about the lunatic fringe? Think about it.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 22:00:24 EST