Using MMCONFIG for PCI config space access is simply an optimization, not
a requirement. Therefore, when it can't be used, there's no need for
KERN_ERR level message. This patch makes the message a KERN_INFO instead
to reduce some of the noise in a kernel boot with the 'quiet' option.
(Note that this has no effect on a normal boot, which is ridiculously
verbose these days.)
Signed-off-by: Jesse Barnes <[email protected]>
Thanks,
Jesse
diff --git a/arch/i386/pci/mmconfig.c b/arch/i386/pci/mmconfig.c
index e2616a2..b95e7f3 100644
--- a/arch/i386/pci/mmconfig.c
+++ b/arch/i386/pci/mmconfig.c
@@ -210,9 +210,9 @@ void __init pci_mmcfg_init(int type)
if (type == 1 && !e820_all_mapped(pci_mmcfg_config[0].base_address,
pci_mmcfg_config[0].base_address + MMCONFIG_APER_MIN,
E820_RESERVED)) {
- printk(KERN_ERR "PCI: BIOS Bug: MCFG area at %x is not E820-reserved\n",
+ printk(KERN_INFO "PCI: BIOS Bug: MCFG area at %x is not E820-reserved\n",
pci_mmcfg_config[0].base_address);
- printk(KERN_ERR "PCI: Not using MMCONFIG.\n");
+ printk(KERN_INFO "PCI: Not using MMCONFIG.\n");
return;
}
On Mon, 1 Jan 2007 21:01:38 -0800
Jesse Barnes <[email protected]> wrote:
> Using MMCONFIG for PCI config space access is simply an optimization, not
> a requirement. Therefore, when it can't be used, there's no need for
Some hardware reqires MCFG. In addition this is an error, a real error on
the vendors part or ours and could indicate there are many other BIOS
problems outstanding.
We shouldn't keep quiet about serious errors in tables, we need people to
know and be able to take appropriate action (eg new BIOSen, refusing
certifications etc).
NAK
On Tuesday, January 2, 2007 2:36 am, Alan wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Jan 2007 21:01:38 -0800
>
> Jesse Barnes <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Using MMCONFIG for PCI config space access is simply an
> > optimization, not a requirement. Therefore, when it can't be used,
> > there's no need for
>
> Some hardware reqires MCFG. In addition this is an error, a real
> error on the vendors part or ours and could indicate there are many
> other BIOS problems outstanding.
Ok, I was mistaken then. However, I see this on several boxes, and the
broken BIOSen out in the wild are unlikely to be fixed. Maybe this
should really be a KERN_WARNING instead since it may indicate that some
devices will fail to work?
> We shouldn't keep quiet about serious errors in tables, we need
> people to know and be able to take appropriate action (eg new BIOSen,
> refusing certifications etc).
Ok.
Jesse
On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 10:36 +0000, Alan wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Jan 2007 21:01:38 -0800
> Jesse Barnes <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Using MMCONFIG for PCI config space access is simply an optimization, not
> > a requirement. Therefore, when it can't be used, there's no need for
>
> Some hardware reqires MCFG. In addition this is an error, a real error on
> the vendors part or ours and could indicate there are many other BIOS
> problems outstanding.
>
> We shouldn't keep quiet about serious errors in tables, we need people to
> know and be able to take appropriate action (eg new BIOSen, refusing
> certifications etc).
to some degree that is what the firmware kit is for ;)
--
if you want to mail me at work (you don't), use arjan (at) linux.intel.com
Test the interaction between Linux and your BIOS via http://www.linuxfirmwarekit.org
On Mon, 2007-01-01 at 21:01 -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> Using MMCONFIG for PCI config space access is simply an optimization, not
> a requirement. Therefore, when it can't be used, there's no need for
> KERN_ERR level message. This patch makes the message a KERN_INFO instead
> to reduce some of the noise in a kernel boot with the 'quiet' option.
> (Note that this has no effect on a normal boot, which is ridiculously
> verbose these days.)
this is wrong, please leave this loud complaint in...
--
if you want to mail me at work (you don't), use arjan (at) linux.intel.com
Test the interaction between Linux and your BIOS via http://www.linuxfirmwarekit.org
On Wednesday, January 3, 2007 5:53 am, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-01-01 at 21:01 -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> > Using MMCONFIG for PCI config space access is simply an
> > optimization, not a requirement. Therefore, when it can't be used,
> > there's no need for KERN_ERR level message. This patch makes the
> > message a KERN_INFO instead to reduce some of the noise in a kernel
> > boot with the 'quiet' option. (Note that this has no effect on a
> > normal boot, which is ridiculously verbose these days.)
>
> this is wrong, please leave this loud complaint in...
So the issues as I understand them:
o some BIOSes are broken and don't properly map MCFG space (though
according to Petr V. reserving MCFG space in e820 is optional, so
the test may be slightly wrong as-is)
o MCFG space is required for (many) PCIe devices (any regular PCI
devices?)
o often, there's nothing the user can do to address the points above
So where does that leave us? I've got what I consider to be a stupid
error message in my log. My system behavior isn't affected in any way
(at least that I can tell), yet I get a loud complaint at boot time.
I guess I just have to live with it?
Thanks,
Jesse
On Wed, 2007-01-03 at 08:49 -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 3, 2007 5:53 am, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > On Mon, 2007-01-01 at 21:01 -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> > > Using MMCONFIG for PCI config space access is simply an
> > > optimization, not a requirement. Therefore, when it can't be used,
> > > there's no need for KERN_ERR level message. This patch makes the
> > > message a KERN_INFO instead to reduce some of the noise in a kernel
> > > boot with the 'quiet' option. (Note that this has no effect on a
> > > normal boot, which is ridiculously verbose these days.)
> >
> > this is wrong, please leave this loud complaint in...
>
> So the issues as I understand them:
> o some BIOSes are broken and don't properly map MCFG space (though
> according to Petr V. reserving MCFG space in e820 is optional, so
> the test may be slightly wrong as-is)
it's optional but it's the best test we have for "is the bios total
crap" ;(
> o MCFG space is required for (many) PCIe devices (any regular PCI
> devices?)
it's not required for *many* (it can't be, windows XP doesn't use MCFG),
but it's required for some of the advanced PCI-E features
> o often, there's nothing the user can do to address the points above
other than complain to the vendor.
>
> So where does that leave us? I've got what I consider to be a stupid
> error message in my log.
contact your bios vendor.
> My system behavior isn't affected in any way
> (at least that I can tell), yet I get a loud complaint at boot time.
>
> I guess I just have to live with it?
We really really should complain about bios issues. If only to make sure
vendors who do pay attention to linux have a chance of finding and
fixing them (and via the firmware kit, several big vendors pay attention
early on nowadays)
--
if you want to mail me at work (you don't), use arjan (at) linux.intel.com
Test the interaction between Linux and your BIOS via http://www.linuxfirmwarekit.org
On Wednesday, January 3, 2007 5:53 am, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-01-01 at 21:01 -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> > Using MMCONFIG for PCI config space access is simply an
> > optimization, not a requirement. Therefore, when it can't be used,
> > there's no need for KERN_ERR level message. This patch makes the
> > message a KERN_INFO instead to reduce some of the noise in a kernel
> > boot with the 'quiet' option. (Note that this has no effect on a
> > normal boot, which is ridiculously verbose these days.)
>
> this is wrong, please leave this loud complaint in...
Or maybe the test is just wrong. I'll try out the PCI MMConfig
per-chipset patches to see if they work. That seems like a better long
term solution anyway.
Thanks,
Jesse
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>On Wed, 2007-01-03 at 08:49 -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
>
>
>>On Wednesday, January 3, 2007 5:53 am, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, 2007-01-01 at 21:01 -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Using MMCONFIG for PCI config space access is simply an
>>>>optimization, not a requirement. Therefore, when it can't be used,
>>>>there's no need for KERN_ERR level message. This patch makes the
>>>>message a KERN_INFO instead to reduce some of the noise in a kernel
>>>>boot with the 'quiet' option. (Note that this has no effect on a
>>>>normal boot, which is ridiculously verbose these days.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>this is wrong, please leave this loud complaint in...
>>>
>>>
>>So the issues as I understand them:
>> o some BIOSes are broken and don't properly map MCFG space (though
>> according to Petr V. reserving MCFG space in e820 is optional, so
>> the test may be slightly wrong as-is)
>>
>>
>
>it's optional but it's the best test we have for "is the bios total
>crap" ;(
>
>
>
>> o MCFG space is required for (many) PCIe devices (any regular PCI
>> devices?)
>>
>>
>
>it's not required for *many* (it can't be, windows XP doesn't use MCFG),
>but it's required for some of the advanced PCI-E features
>
>
>
>> o often, there's nothing the user can do to address the points above
>>
>>
>
>other than complain to the vendor.
>
>
>
>>So where does that leave us? I've got what I consider to be a stupid
>>error message in my log.
>>
>>
>
>contact your bios vendor.
>
>
>
>> My system behavior isn't affected in any way
>>(at least that I can tell), yet I get a loud complaint at boot time.
>>
>>I guess I just have to live with it?
>>
>>
>
>We really really should complain about bios issues. If only to make sure
>vendors who do pay attention to linux have a chance of finding and
>fixing them (and via the firmware kit, several big vendors pay attention
>early on nowadays)
>
>
>
Hi Arjan,
Do you have a list of E-Mail addresses for the people we should be
complaining to. I have an
Asus VBI laptop that spews all kinds of error messages when I boot the
firmware test kit cd, but
I have no idea who to complain to about this, ASUS? Intel? Heck Intel
puts out the test kit, if they
are going to say it is VBI why don't the make the vendors do the bios
correctly?
Regards,
Steve
--
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain temporary safety,
deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Ben Franklin)
"The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty
decreases." (Thomas Jefferson)