From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S267558AbUBRVWH (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Feb 2004 16:22:07 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S267647AbUBRVWH (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Feb 2004 16:22:07 -0500 Received: from node-d-1fcf.a2000.nl ([62.195.31.207]:9348 "EHLO laptop.fenrus.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S267558AbUBRVWF (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Feb 2004 16:22:05 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Intel x86-64 support merge From: Arjan van de Ven To: Linux Kernel Mailing List In-Reply-To: <200402182006.i1IK6CsS022562@hera.kernel.org> References: <200402182006.i1IK6CsS022562@hera.kernel.org> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <1077139308.4479.8.camel@laptop.fenrus.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 (1.4.5-7) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 22:21:48 +0100 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2004-02-18 at 20:44, Linux Kernel Mailing List wrote: > The ugliest part is probably the swiotlb code. In fact the code for > that is not even included, but just reused from IA64. swiotlb > implements the PCI DMA API using bounce buffering. I don't like this at > all, but there was no other way to support non DAC capable hardware > (like IDE or USB) on machines with >3GB. Please redirect all flames for > that to the Intel chipset designers. ehm... so why on earth did Intel cripple this new platform?????