SGI UV will have MMCFG base addresses that are greater than 4GB (32 bits).
Signed-off-by: John Keller <[email protected]>
---
Resend #2: Create a flag, that is set by platform specific code,
to disable the > 4GB check.
Resend #1: Use CONFIG_RESOURCES_64BIT instead of CONFIG_X86_64.
Index: linux-2.6/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c 2008-07-15 11:04:14.000000000 -0500
+++ linux-2.6/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c 2008-07-15 11:08:11.000000000 -0500
@@ -97,6 +97,8 @@ static u64 acpi_lapic_addr __initdata =
#warning ACPI uses CMPXCHG, i486 and later hardware
#endif
+static int acpi_mcfg_64bit_base_addr __initdata = FALSE;
+
/* --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boot-time Configuration
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- */
@@ -158,6 +160,14 @@ char *__init __acpi_map_table(unsigned l
struct acpi_mcfg_allocation *pci_mmcfg_config;
int pci_mmcfg_config_num;
+static int __init acpi_mcfg_oem_check(struct acpi_table_mcfg *mcfg)
+{
+ if (!strcmp(mcfg->header.oem_id, "SGI"))
+ acpi_mcfg_64bit_base_addr = TRUE;
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
int __init acpi_parse_mcfg(struct acpi_table_header *header)
{
struct acpi_table_mcfg *mcfg;
@@ -190,8 +200,12 @@ int __init acpi_parse_mcfg(struct acpi_t
}
memcpy(pci_mmcfg_config, &mcfg[1], config_size);
+
+ acpi_mcfg_oem_check(mcfg);
+
for (i = 0; i < pci_mmcfg_config_num; ++i) {
- if (pci_mmcfg_config[i].address > 0xFFFFFFFF) {
+ if ((pci_mmcfg_config[i].address > 0xFFFFFFFF) &&
+ !acpi_mcfg_64bit_base_addr) {
printk(KERN_ERR PREFIX
"MMCONFIG not in low 4GB of memory\n");
kfree(pci_mmcfg_config);
Just checking on the status of this patch.
If there are no issues, please apply.
Thanks,
John
================================
SGI UV will have MMCFG base addresses that are greater than 4GB (32 bits).
Signed-off-by: John Keller <[email protected]>
---
Resend #2: Create a flag, that is set by platform specific code,
to disable the > 4GB check.
Resend #1: Use CONFIG_RESOURCES_64BIT instead of CONFIG_X86_64.
Index: linux-2.6/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c 2008-07-15 11:04:14.000000000 -0500
+++ linux-2.6/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c 2008-07-15 11:08:11.000000000 -0500
@@ -97,6 +97,8 @@ static u64 acpi_lapic_addr __initdata =
#warning ACPI uses CMPXCHG, i486 and later hardware
#endif
+static int acpi_mcfg_64bit_base_addr __initdata = FALSE;
+
/* --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boot-time Configuration
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- */
@@ -158,6 +160,14 @@ char *__init __acpi_map_table(unsigned l
struct acpi_mcfg_allocation *pci_mmcfg_config;
int pci_mmcfg_config_num;
+static int __init acpi_mcfg_oem_check(struct acpi_table_mcfg *mcfg)
+{
+ if (!strcmp(mcfg->header.oem_id, "SGI"))
+ acpi_mcfg_64bit_base_addr = TRUE;
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
int __init acpi_parse_mcfg(struct acpi_table_header *header)
{
struct acpi_table_mcfg *mcfg;
@@ -190,8 +200,12 @@ int __init acpi_parse_mcfg(struct acpi_t
}
memcpy(pci_mmcfg_config, &mcfg[1], config_size);
+
+ acpi_mcfg_oem_check(mcfg);
+
for (i = 0; i < pci_mmcfg_config_num; ++i) {
- if (pci_mmcfg_config[i].address > 0xFFFFFFFF) {
+ if ((pci_mmcfg_config[i].address > 0xFFFFFFFF) &&
+ !acpi_mcfg_64bit_base_addr) {
printk(KERN_ERR PREFIX
"MMCONFIG not in low 4GB of memory\n");
kfree(pci_mmcfg_config);
* John Keller <[email protected]> wrote:
> Just checking on the status of this patch.
> If there are no issues, please apply.
> SGI UV will have MMCFG base addresses that are greater than 4GB (32 bits).
applied to tip/x86/uv, thanks John.
Ingo
>
>
> * John Keller <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Just checking on the status of this patch.
> > If there are no issues, please apply.
>
> > SGI UV will have MMCFG base addresses that are greater than 4GB (32 bits).
>
> applied to tip/x86/uv, thanks John.
>
> Ingo
Thanks.
Will this patch be pushed into 2.6.27?
If not, how do I make this happen?
Thanks again,
John