On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Stefan Reinauer stepan@coresystems.de wrote:
a) a pci domain
that's my error. Basically, I figured at the time that - everything was going PCIe - it was simpler to just have a domain on everything, and have it be "empty" and 0 on non-PCIe systems for what little time we had them. I.e. rather than have #ifdef everywhere just have a fixed set of rules as to the hierarchy.
b) a pci bus "device" whatever that is supposed to depict c) a pci bridge (host bridge)
In many cases, we have chips that have a device function and a bridge function. Again, I may have made a mistake when I moved the code over. But there really are chips that have both functions.
Also, I was doing my best to recreate the *function* of the v2 code. I agree that as a result we have weirdness inherited from v2 and we would do well to try to fix that.
We can not fix all this stuff right away, but I am glad you are pointing out that we have a need for improvement ;-)
Thanks
ron