From: Krzysztof Halasa <khc@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 01:40:18 +0200 > Jeff Garzik <jeff@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > In general it is documented that INTX_DISABLE should apply only to > > INTx# so devices that disable MSI based on that bit are out of spec. > > The wording is: > 10: This bit disables the device from asserting INTx#. A value of 0 > enables the assertion of its INTx# signal. A value of 1 disables the > assertion of its INTx# signal. This bit's state after RST# is 0. Refer > to Section 6.8.1.3 for control of MSI. > > So strictly speaking it mandates disabling/enabling INTx but says > nothing about other things (e.g. MSI). Some common sense dictates > it shouldn't disable MSI, I guess. Right, and every vendor I've spoken to who had the INTX_DISABLE bug clearly acknowledged that it was a bug in their RTL design and that they considered the spec to be clear on this matter in that INTX_DISABLE should not influence MSI in any way. > The "MSI Enable" description doesn't leave any doubt: > 0: MSI Enable: If 1, the function is permitted to use MSI to request > service and is prohibited from using its INTx# pin [...] Things get more complicated with PCI-Express because INTx# isn't an out-of-band "pin", but rather a message sent over the bus :-) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
