Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 14 May 2010 15:59:11 -0700 | From | Mike Travis <> | Subject | Re: [Patch 1/1] x86 pci: Add option to not assign BAR's if not already assigned |
| |
Jesse Barnes wrote: > On Fri, 14 May 2010 15:34:01 -0700 > Mike Travis <travis@sgi.com> wrote: > >> >> Jesse Barnes wrote: >>> On Thu, 13 May 2010 14:02:30 -0600 >>> Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@hp.com> wrote: >>>>>> This issue is not specific to x86, so I don't really like having >>>>>> the implementation be x86-specific. >>>>> I agree this isn't a x86 specific issue but given the 'norom' >>>>> cmdline option is basically doing the same thing (but for pci >>>>> Expansion ROM BARs) this code was modeled after it. >>>> IMHO, we should fix both. >>> Yeah, that would be good. Mike, have you looked at this at all? >>> >>> Also, to clarify, this isn't affecting users today, right? Or do you >>> need all this I/O space for multiple IOHs and the drivers that bind to >>> them in current UV systems? >> We have customers that want to install more than 16 PCI-e cards right >> now. Our window of opportunity closes very soon (days), so either this >> patch makes it in as is (or something close), or we wait for another >> release cycle. UV shipments start this month. >> >> [I wouldn't mind working on an improvement for later.] > > Wow and they're using cards that want to use I/O space? Funky. It's > too late to get this into 2.6.34, but that can't be what you were > expecting... I don't see a problem with getting something like this in > for 2.6.35.
2.6.35 would be fine. It's the acceptance that's the key.
And yes, we're using standard cards like everyone else... ;-)
[The message is "UV" is just a really, really big PC. ;-)]
I would appreciate however, some more detail on what's the goal of the updates to "fix both". Thanks!
> >>> Fundamentally, until we have real dynamic PCI resource management (i.e. >>> driver hooks for handling relocation, lazy allocation of resources at >>> driver bind time, etc.) we're going to continue to need hacks like >>> this. However, we could make them slightly more automated by making >>> "nobar" and "norom" the default on systems that typically need them, >>> maybe with a DMI table. >> It seems that BIOS changes are much more difficult. The real solution >> to this problem is for Card Vendors to not request I/O Bars if they >> won't be using them. But that's the hardest option of all to accomplish. > > Right. >
| |