[lkml]   [2004]   [Jan]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Intel Alder IOAPIC fix
James Bottomley <> 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?

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:00    [W:0.064 / U:1.760 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site