On Sat, 9 Dec 2000, Martin Mares wrote:
> > Questions:
> > 1. Is there reason for the drivers to be setting this themselves
> > to hardcoded values ?
>
> Definitely not unless the devices are buggy and need a work-around.
Maybe that's the case. The culprits are mostly IDE interfaces. Andre ?
drivers/ide/cmd64x.c: (void) pci_write_config_byte(dev,PCI_CACHE_LINE_SIZE, 0x10);
drivers/ide/cs5530.c: pci_write_config_byte(cs5530_0,PCI_CACHE_LINE_SIZE, 0x04);
drivers/ide/hpt366.c: pci_write_config_byte(dev,PCI_CACHE_LINE_SIZE, 0x08);
drivers/ide/ns87415.c: (void) pci_write_config_byte(dev,PCI_CACHE_LINE_SIZE, 0x10);
drivers/atm/eni.c: pci_write_config_byte(eni_dev->pci_dev,PCI_CACHE_LINE_SIZE,
0x10);
drivers/media/video/planb.c: pci_write_config_byte (pdev,PCI_CACHE_LINE_SIZE, 0x8);
> For PC's, we've until now relied on the BIOS setting up cache line
> sizes correctly. Are the "8"'s you've spotted due to drivers messing
> with the cache line register or do they come from the BIOS?
>From the BIOS. They are the USB controllers, I couldn't see any writes
to the PCI_CACHE_LINE_SIZE in the drivers.
regards,
Davej.
--
| Dave Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.suse.de/~davej
| SuSE Labs
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
