Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 14:17:17 +0200 From: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: disable 64-bit dma for one PCI slot only? Message-ID: <j03skd$qp2$1@dough.gmane.org> In-Reply-To: <4E251C96.5050105@FreeBSD.org> References: <4E20BA23.13717.66C6F57@markmcconnell.iinet.com> <201107181402.12755.jhb@freebsd.org> <797CACDE-729E-4F3A-AEFF-531C00C2B83A@samsco.org> <201107181714.07827.jhb@freebsd.org> <4F739848-E3CE-4E2C-A91E-90F33410E7AC@samsco.org> <4E251C96.5050105@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 19/07/2011 07:56, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote: > On 19.07.2011 1:22, Scott Long wrote: >>>> Btw, I *HATE* the "chip" and "card" identifiers used in pciconf. Can we change it to emit >>>> the standard (sub)vendor/(sub)device terminology? >>> >>> Oh, yeah. I hate that too. Would you want them as 4 separate entities or to just rename the >>> labels to 'devid' and 'subdevid'? >>> >> >> If we're going to change it, might as well break it down into 4 fields. Maybe we retain the old >> format under a legacy switch and/or env variable for users that have tools that parse the output >> (cough yahoo cough). > > Hi, Scott > > i think for keeping POLA it is better add new option to make new output format. This is a too strict interpretation of POLA! If the change is done for better compliance with standards and it is done in a major version (i.e. 9.0 or 10.0), it's not a matter of POLA (otherwise, the change will never happen).
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?j03skd$qp2$1>