lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [May]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: regression fixed by using pci=rom

* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> 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.

i tend to believe that the best strategy would be to generally do what
other OSs do for PCI BAR sizing and PCI resource setup [on desktop
systems that would be Windows in particular] - and i believe there are
still a number of gratuitous-looking differences in our code that seem
unnecessary. Especially on the myriads of desktop systems Windows is
what gets tested primarily, and by deviating from that legacy layout we
just set up ourselves for unnecessary failures.

To Linux the primary interest is in devices not failing due to
unexpected layout and them not overlapping any magic areas - good
resource compression is something that larger systems can opt-in into
anyway if it's really needed. In that sense this commit that came
through us failed that strict benchmark :-/

> 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.

yeah, we stopped doing that in this window (the commits you got form us
in this window were all leftovers and acked by Jesse) - and we've
already bounced over all PCI-looking patches to Jesse and asked Jesse
about all PCI affecting pulls as well in this window. Even this window's
leftovers we made separate topics and sent separate pull requests for
them (all tested and acked by Jesse) because it's not really arch/x86
and PCI commits just need to be considered separately from all other
changes.

Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-05-09 08:47    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans