Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753505AbYLFVZ0 (ORCPT ); Sat, 6 Dec 2008 16:25:26 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752797AbYLFVZN (ORCPT ); Sat, 6 Dec 2008 16:25:13 -0500 Received: from ogre.sisk.pl ([217.79.144.158]:60615 "EHLO ogre.sisk.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752795AbYLFVZL (ORCPT ); Sat, 6 Dec 2008 16:25:11 -0500 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] PCI: Rework default handling of suspend and resume Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 22:24:15 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 Cc: Greg KH , Ingo Molnar , Jesse Barnes , Len Brown , LKML , Takashi Iwai , Andrew Morton , pm list References: <200812020320.31876.rjw@sisk.pl> <200812061843.59495.rjw@sisk.pl> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200812062224.16266.rjw@sisk.pl> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2760 Lines: 55 On Saturday, 6 of December 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Sat, 6 Dec 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > So, to fix the issue at hand, I'd like the $subject patch to go first. Then, > > there is a major update of the new framework waiting for .29 in the Greg's > > tree (that's the main reason why nobody uses it so far, BTW) and I'd really > > prefer it to go next. After it's been merged, I'm going to add the mandatory > > suspend-resume things (save state and go to a low power state on suspend, > > restore state on resume) to the new framework in a separete patch. > > > > Is this plan acceptable? > > Sounds good to me. And assuming Jesse/Greg are all aboard, I'll just wait > for the pull requests from Jesse and Greg. > > The only thing I'll do right now is to send off my "print out ICH6+ > LPC resources" patch again to Jesse, with a changelog etc. It can probably > go in as-is (it really just adds printk's), but since it didn't matter > anyway we migth as well just do it as a PCI thing for 2.6.29 too. > > On a similar note, I wonder what we should do about the whole "transparent > bridge resource allocation" thing. It also didn't end up really mattering, > even if it apparently made a difference for Frans. The question is just > whether we would be better off with IO windows for transparent buses (the > way we try to set things up now), or with a simpler PCI resource tree that > just takes advantage of the transparency. > > The bridge windows _may_ result in better PCI throughput behind such a > bridge, so there is some argument for keeping them. On the other hand, > transparent bridges aren't generally for high-performance stuff anyway, > and one advantage of the transparency is the flexibility it allows (ie we > don't _need_ to set up the static bridging windows). The static bridging windows help understand the system topology a bit IMO, because you can just look at /proc/iomem and see what resources are behind the bridge. > I dunno. I wonder what Windows does. Following Windows in areas like this > tends to have the advantage that it's what the firmware and the hardware > has generally been tested with most. At the same time, I'm not sure this > is necessarily a very bug-prone area for either firmware or hardware. If > there's actual bridge bugs wrt the windows, I suspect such a bridge would > be broken enough to be unusable regardless. I think Intel people should be able to find out what Windows does in this area. Thanks, Rafael -- 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/