Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Intel Alder IOAPIC fix | From | (Eric W. Biederman) | Date | 14 Jan 2004 22:18:49 -0700 |
| |
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@steeleye.com> writes:
> On Mon, 2004-01-12 at 19:25, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > I think BARs 1-5 don't exist at all. Being set to all ones is common for > > "unused" (it ends up being a normal result of a lazy probe - you set all > > bits to 1 to check for the size of the region, and if you decide not to > > map it and leave it there, you'll get the above behaviour). > > > > I suspect only BAR0 is actually real. > > OK, I cleaned up the patch to forcibly insert BAR0 and clear BARs 1-5 > (it still requires changes to insert_resource to work, though).
When I looked at the ia64 code that uses insert_resource (and I admit I am reading between the lines a little) it seems to come along after potentially allocating some resources behind some kind of bridge and then realize a bridge is there.
Which is totally something different from this case where we just want to ignore the BIOS, because we know better. I have seen a number of boxes that reserver the area where apics or ioapics live. So I think we need an IORESOURCE_TENTATIVE thing. This is the third flavor of thing that has shown up, lately.
Want me to code up a patch?
Eric - 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/
| |