"David S. Miller" wrote:
> Looks, ppc64 is really still experimental right?
Heck no.
> Which means it is
> 2.5.x material, and 2.5.x has been quoted as being a week or two away.
I sure hope that ppc64 is NOT considered 2.5.x material.
> So we can solve this problem for real, with system bus domains, and
> get ppc64 working all within the framework of 2.5.x which is just
> around the corner.
A real solution would be nice. And if the real solution can ONLY be in 2.5, then
is it such a bad idea moving the bus number type to unsigned int for 2.4.x?
> For now, I am rather sure your systems for testing have < 256 physical
> PCI busses and you can for 2.4.x use the remapping scheme sparc64 uses.
Wellll, remember that post about more than 256 PCI buses? I meant it.
Regards,
Tom
-- Tom Gall - PPC64 Maintainer "Where's the ka-boom? There was Linux Technology Center supposed to be an earth (w) tom_gall@vnet.ibm.com shattering ka-boom!" (w) 507-253-4558 -- Marvin Martian (h) tgall@rochcivictheatre.org http://www.ibm.com/linux/ltc/projects/ppc- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jun 30 2001 - 21:00:18 EST