On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 03:23:58PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Wed, 2014-05-14 at 14:18 +1000, David Gibson wrote: > > I supposed it's arguable that a PCI ranges property really should have > > windows for both prefetchable and non-prefetchable areas, but since > > that's not done in practice, it's pretty much moot. > > They don't have to, only if there's a relevant difference, ie it's > perfectly legit for a firmware to assign prefetchable BARs in a > non-prefetchable region. In what sense is the window region non-prefetchable? Isn't that a property only of the final destination of the bus cycle? > Now granted, those are somewhat special cases so maybe we should > do just that ... special case PCI and try to not continue that mess > with new bindings. Yeah, I think that's the way to go. -- David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
Attachment:
pgpQl2qO_cteN.pgp
Description: PGP signature
