Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 08:19:56 -0600 From: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, avalonwallace@gmail.com, dely.l.sy@intel.com Subject: Re: misc questions about the device&driver arch Message-ID: <447C548C.4080302@samsco.org> In-Reply-To: <20060530.075818.-820706528.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <20060524153153.GF49081@funkthat.com> <87ab37ab0605280309s15a31cb4yc8a54be1af5472dd@mail.gmail.com> <87ab37ab0605300642ja608c97s24836a317cdac24@mail.gmail.com> <20060530.075818.-820706528.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
M. Warner Losh wrote: > : THIRD > : Because the PCIE configure space is 4k long ,shall we change the > : #define PCI_REGMAX 255 > : to facilitate the PCI express config R/W? > > Maybe. Lemme investigate because PCIe changes this from a well known > constant for all pci busses, to a variable one... > > Warner When I added PCIe extended config support, I never took into consderation the userland access point of view. Changing this definition to 4096 might Just Work, and it might Not Work. Dunno. In the 18 months since I implemented it, no other person has asked about userland access. Other than the silly case of people trying to write device drivers in PERL, I'm not sure how much value it gives compared to the stability and security risk it imposes. Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?447C548C.4080302>