Re: [PATCH] PCI-Devices and ServerWorks chipset

2001-02-08 Thread Martin Mares
Hello! > 0x44 is the primary bus number of the host bridge, and 0x45 is the > subordinate bus number for the bridge. Just like a PCI-PCI bridge, but > different :) Since there are two CNB30 functions, each has unique values > for this. The primary bus of the second bridge must be the subordina

Re: [PATCH] PCI-Devices and ServerWorks chipset

2001-01-23 Thread Adam Lackorzynski
On Wed Jan 17, 2001 at 09:52:21 +0100, Martin Mares wrote: > Hello! > > > The patch below (against vanilla 2.4.0) makes Linux recognize > > PCI-Devices sitting in another PCI bus than 0 (or 1). > > > > This was tested on a Netfinity 7100-8666 using a ServerWorks chipset. > > I don't have the Se

Re: [PATCH] PCI-Devices and ServerWorks chipset

2001-01-22 Thread Tim Hockin
> > patch is wrong -- it doesn't make any sense to scan a bus _range_. The registers > > 0x44 and 0x45 are probably ID's of two primary buses and the code should scan > > both of them, but not the space between them. > 0x44 is the primary bus number of the host bridge, and 0x45 is the subordinat

Re: [PATCH] PCI-Devices and ServerWorks chipset

2001-01-19 Thread Maciej W. Rozycki
On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, Andre Hedrick wrote: > > Weird. Others somehow are able to provide specs. Documentation for the > > entire line of Intel chipsets is available, for example. > > This because the make chipsets to basically give away to sell processors. > That should be very obvious, they t

RE: [PATCH] PCI-Devices and ServerWorks chipset (fwd)

2001-01-18 Thread Andre Hedrick
on is now the key now that Revolution is established. Regards, Andre Hedrick Linux ATA Development -- Forwarded message -- Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 14:44:00 -0800 From: Kim To: Andre Hedrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Subject: RE: [PATCH] PCI-Devices and ServerWorks chipset (fwd)

Re: [PATCH] PCI-Devices and ServerWorks chipset

2001-01-18 Thread Andre Hedrick
On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > Weird. Others somehow are able to provide specs. Documentation for the > entire line of Intel chipsets is available, for example. This because the make chipsets to basically give away to sell processors. That should be very obvious, they they se

Re: [PATCH] PCI-Devices and ServerWorks chipset

2001-01-18 Thread Maciej W. Rozycki
On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, Andre Hedrick wrote: > I can get any info needed, you just have to define the scope. Good. > Then will not can and will not give out details on a generic form. Weird. Others somehow are able to provide specs. Documentation for the entire line of Intel chipsets is avail

Re: [PATCH] PCI-Devices and ServerWorks chipset

2001-01-18 Thread Andre Hedrick
On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > On Wed, 17 Jan 2001, Dan Hollis wrote: > > > They require not only an NDA, but that you also do all development on-site > > at their santa clara HQ under their direct supervision. > > I haven't went that far -- I'm not going to sign any NDA anyti

Re: [PATCH] PCI-Devices and ServerWorks chipset

2001-01-18 Thread Maciej W. Rozycki
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001, Dan Hollis wrote: > They require not only an NDA, but that you also do all development on-site > at their santa clara HQ under their direct supervision. I haven't went that far -- I'm not going to sign any NDA anytime soon, so I haven't asked them for details. I recall som

Re: [PATCH] PCI-Devices and ServerWorks chipset

2001-01-17 Thread Dan Hollis
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > On Wed, 17 Jan 2001, Martin Mares wrote: > > I don't have the ServerWorks chipset documentation at hand, but I think your > > patch is wrong -- it doesn't make any sense to scan a bus _range_. The registers > > 0x44 and 0x45 are probably ID's of two

Re: [PATCH] PCI-Devices and ServerWorks chipset

2001-01-17 Thread Maciej W. Rozycki
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001, Martin Mares wrote: > I don't have the ServerWorks chipset documentation at hand, but I think your > patch is wrong -- it doesn't make any sense to scan a bus _range_. The registers > 0x44 and 0x45 are probably ID's of two primary buses and the code should scan > both of them

Re: [PATCH] PCI-Devices and ServerWorks chipset

2001-01-17 Thread Adam Lackorzynski
Hi! On Wed Jan 17, 2001 at 09:52:21 +0100, Martin Mares wrote: > > The patch below (against vanilla 2.4.0) makes Linux recognize > > PCI-Devices sitting in another PCI bus than 0 (or 1). > > > > This was tested on a Netfinity 7100-8666 using a ServerWorks chipset. > > I don't have the ServerWor

Re: [PATCH] PCI-Devices and ServerWorks chipset

2001-01-17 Thread Martin Mares
Hello! > The patch below (against vanilla 2.4.0) makes Linux recognize > PCI-Devices sitting in another PCI bus than 0 (or 1). > > This was tested on a Netfinity 7100-8666 using a ServerWorks chipset. I don't have the ServerWorks chipset documentation at hand, but I think your patch is wrong --

[PATCH] PCI-Devices and ServerWorks chipset

2001-01-16 Thread Adam Lackorzynski
The patch below (against vanilla 2.4.0) makes Linux recognize PCI-Devices sitting in another PCI bus than 0 (or 1). This was tested on a Netfinity 7100-8666 using a ServerWorks chipset. 00:00.0 Host bridge: ServerWorks CNB20HE (rev 21) 00:00.1 Host bridge: ServerWorks CNB20HE (rev 01) 00:00.2