DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=beta;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=oKiZcHij+fC/+63NQbYy4dFKxEc3TAAbpuvta5UjL3kxn4Jw7qI3P+k56G2kuGsHULfbYuoxPyM1fDqVqfteNID2GxGImM2hszDk6gR2gAl70Se27XaypjuVxAGGWP22pTyBJ7ABUjGFm+VRWWW9wcl7UDTPvbDcAhyS+hacGIA=
Message-ID: <86802c440709221340h2cbbf423y239f399ab5da815d@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 13:40:21 -0700
From: "Yinghai Lu" <yhlu.kernel@gmail.com>
To: "Robert Hancock" <hancockr@shaw.ca>,
       "Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
       "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [9/50] i386: validate against ACPI motherboard resources
Cc: "Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>, "Andi Kleen" <ak@suse.de>,
       rajesh.shah@intel.com, jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org, greg@kroah.com,
       patches@x86-64.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
In-Reply-To: <46F56208.90208@shaw.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <200709221231.836138000@suse.de>
	 <20070921223207.7BBE71479D@wotan.suse.de>
	 <86802c440709212349l3d968d1bgdc89e7c7415b54da@mail.gmail.com>
	 <46F542A4.9080207@shaw.ca> <1190484117.4035.71.camel@chaos>
	 <46F56208.90208@shaw.ca>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2473
Lines: 60

On 9/22/07, Robert Hancock <hancockr@shaw.ca> wrote:
> Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Sat, 2007-09-22 at 10:28 -0600, Robert Hancock wrote:
> >> Yinghai Lu wrote:
> >>> No!
> >>>
> >>> MMCONFIG will not work with acpi=off any more.
> >> I don't think this is unreasonable. The ACPI MCFG table is how we are
> >> supposed to learn about the area in the first place. If we can't get the
> >> table location via an approved mechanism, and can't validate it doesn't
> >> overlap with another memory reservation or something, I really don't
> >> think we should be using it.
> >
> > We all know how correct ACPI tables are. Specifications are nice,
> > reality tells a different story.
>
> MMCONFIG can't be used without ACPI in any case unless we know where the
>   table is using chipset-specific knowledge (i.e. reading the registers
> directly). Doing that without being told that this area is really
> intended to be used, via the ACPI table, is dangerous, i.e. we don't
> necessarily know if the MMCONFIG is broken on the platform in some way
> we can't detect.

the BIOS get these info from the chipset too.
for AMD Fam 10h opteron, we can read that MSR for MMCONFIG base.

>
> >
> >> I don't think it's much of an issue anyway - the chances that somebody
> >> will want to run without ACPI on a system with MCFG are pretty low given
> >> that you'll end up losing a bunch of functionality (not least of which
> >> is multi-cores).
> >
> > acpi=off is an often used debug switch and it _is_ quite useful. Taking
> > away debug functionality is not a good idea.
>
> If someone has to turn ACPI off, disabling MMCONFIG is probably the
> least of their worries..

MMCONFIG has nothing to do ACPI..., just becase MCFG in the ACPI, we
must use ACPI for MMCONFIG?

For AMD Fam 10h opteron, because using MMCONFIG need via %eax, so BIOS
will stilll stay with MCFG entry for MCP55 SB to not break other
os..., then you can not access ext config space for NB...

with enabling MMCONFIG in NB, and read NNCONFIG BASE from NB,( via
pci_mmcfg_check_hostbridge) that we get full MMCONFIG access for NB...

Anyway this patch alter the feature...

BTW if you trust MCFG in ACPI so much, why do you need to bother to
verify that in DSDT...

YH
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/