Marius Strobl wrote: > On Sun, Sep 30, 2007 at 03:34:57PM -0700, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: >> On Sep 30, 2007, at 3:17 PM, Marius Strobl wrote: >> >>>> Where it would previously succeed, I now get .. >>>> >>>> toshi# pciconf -wb pci0:30:0 0x1a 8 >>>> pciconf: ioctl(PCIOCWRITE): Operation not supported by device >>>> >>> As mentioned the format of the location strings has changed, >>> you probably need to use pci0:0:30:0. >> If compatibility is a concern, we may be able to make the parsing >> a bit more smart without too much complexity. We can count the >> number of colons for exampl,e and assume missing elements are 0. >> So, if one enters pci1:2:3, the domain will be 0. If one enters >> pci4:5, both the domain and bus will be 0, etc. >> >> Just a thought... >> > > Unfortunately, for pciconf(8) the function is already optional > so pci1:2:3 would be ambiguous. Well, since it was me who chose to parse it that way, when pciconf saw the light of day, I can say that the logical extension appears to be the support of 3 formats for the PCI device selector: pci1:2:3:4 (full, domain/bus/slot/function, required if domain!=0) pci2:3:4 (abridged, in case the domain is "0") pci2:3 (abridged, in case the domain and function are "0") Since most devices are on a system with just a single PCI host adapter, the two abridged formats could still be used, as before. Just in case of multiple PCI domains, the full 4 value form was required for any domain other than "0". No compatibility problems, and the 3 value form would keep the current meaning (it would become domain/bus/slot now). This appears to be in compliance with POLA. It means, that all the current scripts (which may be shared between 6.x and 7.x) can stay unmodified, since the 2- and 3-value formats keep their semantics. And if PCI domains are used, its obvious there are no compatibility issues (since they are no present in 6.x). Since this was a change to my original code, I'd like to make the change I outlined above, unless there are strong objections. Regards, STefan PS: I can provide a patch for review later this day.Received on Mon Oct 01 2007 - 11:18:45 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:18 UTC