Re: Stupid PCI Bit-naming convention question
H. Peter Anvin (hpa@zytor.com)
6 Dec 2001 15:51:49 -0800
Followup to: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0112061732040.22686-100000@rtlab.med.cornell.edu>
By author: "Calin A. Culianu" <calin@ajvar.org>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> In my attempts to investigate whether or not my m/b is afflicted by the
> VIA KT266 hardware bug at device 1106:3099 register 0x95, bits 5,6,7, I
> have a dumb question: Namely, how are bits numbered?
>
> I would assume that bits are numbered from smallest value to largest,
> indexed at 0, so that bit 7 is the '128' component of a byte and bit 0 is
> the '1' component.. correct?
>
Yes.
-hpa
--
<hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt <amsp@zytor.com>
-
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/