[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:0.020 / U:2.232 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site