No. It just reveals that you have no idea what you are talking about.
It was proven when you talked about EDD, and now it is proven again.
Table 3 of rev 0f, page 11:
Byte offset Description Attribute Value
09h Programming Interface Code | See Table 4 | Defined in table 1
0Ah Subclass code Read-only 01h - IDE
0Bh Base class code Read-only 01h - Mass Storage
and to your surprise, my IDE interface is:
00:1f.1 Class 0101: 8086:244b (rev 05) (prog-if 80 [Master])
so if this device should not have Class 0101, then there is certainly
some problem somewhere.
> The context of what is the EOT between the two HOST protocols has no
> meaning.
Yes? Then please tell me what chapter 6, PCI Compatibility and Native
Bus Master Adapters, pages 22-28 of rev 0c, talks about...
In rev 0f it is chapter 5, same name, PDF pages 19-26, document pages 10-17.
EOT is back here in this revision, so actually current standard is OK,
and Intel is misbehaving (or maybe just "extending" standard?).
And if you insist that this chapter does not describe UDMA busmastering
programming interface, then please point me to the correct document.
There is no other document with simillar name on the T13 web.
Petr Vandrovec
vandrove@vc.cvut.cz
-
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/