![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Thu, 8 May 2008, Jesse Barnes wrote: > > Hm, yeah in many cases we definitely *do* want to try to get the expansion ROM > space allocated. But maybe it should be a lower priority than other BARs... > Gary? The thing is, a lot of these things have been done this way because not doing them that way breaks. We want to allocate expansion ROM space - even if we don't enable it - because not doing so will screw up bus sizing etc, and can make it impossible to allocate later. In general, changing PCI allocation strategy is really _really_ dangerous, even when it is "right", because it tends to expose a lot of issues where something worked just because it was perhaps indirectly causing a layout that worked. So the reason I immediately reverted this is that it was simply totally wrong. If somebody cares about multi-node systems, the onus of making those work should be on *that*, not on old systems that already work. Ingo, Thomas: I would _seriously_ suggest that you don't consider the x86 PCI setup code to be "x86" code. Because it isn't. Not in that sense. Just don't take patches to it. Linus -- 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/ | |||||||||
| Last update: 2008-05-09 01:51 [W:0.240 / U:0.040 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | ||||||||||