ACPI Address Space Descriptors (used in _CRS) have a Consumer/Producer
bit that is supposed to distinguish regions that are consumed directly
by a device from those that are forwarded ("produced") by a bridge.
But BIOSes have apparently not used this consistently, and Windows
seems to ignore it, so I think Linux should ignore it as well.
I can't point to any of these supposed broken BIOSes, but since we
now rely on _CRS by default, I think it's safer to ignore this bit
from the start.
Here are details of my experiments with how Windows handles it:
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15701
Signed-off-by: Bjorn Helgaas <[email protected]>
---
arch/x86/pci/acpi.c | 3 +--
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/pci/acpi.c b/arch/x86/pci/acpi.c
index c7b1ebf..334153c 100644
--- a/arch/x86/pci/acpi.c
+++ b/arch/x86/pci/acpi.c
@@ -71,8 +71,7 @@ resource_to_addr(struct acpi_resource *resource,
if (ACPI_SUCCESS(status) &&
(addr->resource_type == ACPI_MEMORY_RANGE ||
addr->resource_type == ACPI_IO_RANGE) &&
- addr->address_length > 0 &&
- addr->producer_consumer == ACPI_PRODUCER) {
+ addr->address_length > 0) {
return AE_OK;
}
return AE_ERROR;
On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 13:24:08 -0600
Bjorn Helgaas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ACPI Address Space Descriptors (used in _CRS) have a Consumer/Producer
> bit that is supposed to distinguish regions that are consumed directly
> by a device from those that are forwarded ("produced") by a bridge.
> But BIOSes have apparently not used this consistently, and Windows
> seems to ignore it, so I think Linux should ignore it as well.
>
> I can't point to any of these supposed broken BIOSes, but since we
> now rely on _CRS by default, I think it's safer to ignore this bit
> from the start.
>
> Here are details of my experiments with how Windows handles it:
> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15701
>
> Signed-off-by: Bjorn Helgaas <[email protected]>
> ---
Applied to my for-linus branch, thanks.
--
Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center