is PCITAG big enough for future expansion?

[Jesse Barnes]

On Wednesday, July 20, 2005 10:54 am, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 20, 2005 9:59 am, Dave Airlie wrote:
> > I'm not fully up on the PCI spec, but what are the defined sizes
> > for the
> >
> > domain, bus, device and function
> >
> > can these become larger than 255? we munge them all into an
> > unsigned long PCITAG is it big enough for future expansion.. I
> > think the PCITAG thing is a bit of an ugly hack, its not as if
> > passing a pointer to a PciBusId instead of the unsigned long is
> > really going to make a huge performance difference to the X
> > server...
>
> I like that idea, I was just checking how you had modified the
> mapping routines to see how we should update the in/out routines. 
> I'll go with PciBusId * I guess.

Ok, after further looking, I'll use BusPtr in the in/out routines, that 
should be enough to cover everyone.  I think we should get rid of 
PCITAG though, it seems redundant since we already have BusRec and 
PciBusId...

Jesse