lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Jan]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 08/14] pci: update bridge res to get more big range in pci assign unssign
    Date
    On Friday 15 January 2010 02:12:39 pm Yinghai Lu wrote:
    > On 01/15/2010 11:12 AM, Jesse Barnes wrote:
    > > On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 15:02:28 -0800
    > > Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org> wrote:
    > >
    > >> BIOS separate IO range between several IOHs, and on some slots, BIOS
    > >> assign the resource to the bridge, but stop assigning resource to the
    > >> device under that bridge, because the device need big resource.
    > >>
    > >> 1. pci assign unassign and record the failed device resource.
    > >> 2. clear the BIOS assigned resource of the parent bridge of fail
    > >> device 3. go back and call pci assign unsigned
    > >> 4. if it still fail, will go up more bridges. and clear and try again.
    > >>
    > >> use pci_try_num to control back track bridge levels.
    > >>
    > >> -v2: update it with resource_list_x
    > >> -v3: make pci_try_num default to 1. and when pci_try_num is set to
    > >> more than 1 will check it with max_depth, and adjust that to make
    > >> sure it is bigger enough
    > >
    > > I really don't like the 'try' argument. Either we can assign the
    > > resource or not; 'try=' just makes the whole thing scarier, as if we
    > > expect problems if we release too many resources. If that's the case,
    > > then the whole approach must be flawed, since it means we're not taking
    > > into account some resources, or we're missing something about the
    > > system configuration.
    >
    > before this patchset, acctually try = 1, and will not touch pci bridge resource if that are assigned by BIOS.
    >
    > with this patchset, try = 1, will just like the old ways.
    > try = 2, it will find the deepest bridge, and increase the try.

    I think Jesse understands how this works.

    My opinion is that it's just an unacceptable user interface. We
    can't tell users "boot Linux, if it doesn't work boot with 'try=1',
    if *that* doesn't work boot with 'try=2', etc." That just makes
    us look stupid, IMHO.

    Bjorn


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2010-01-15 22:37    [W:0.036 / U:59.256 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site