Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756950AbZLNL11 (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Dec 2009 06:27:27 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756938AbZLNL1Y (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Dec 2009 06:27:24 -0500 Received: from hera.kernel.org ([140.211.167.34]:58929 "EHLO hera.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756879AbZLNL1M (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Dec 2009 06:27:12 -0500 Message-ID: <4B2620C6.9050901@kernel.org> Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 03:25:58 -0800 From: Yinghai Lu User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090817) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tvrtko Ursulin CC: Tvrtko Ursulin , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: Are these MTRR settings correct? References: <200912130807.44905.tvrtko@ursulin.net> <200912131719.01388.tvrtko@ursulin.net> <4B257117.40009@kernel.org> <200912141119.55068.tvrtko.ursulin@sophos.com> In-Reply-To: <200912141119.55068.tvrtko.ursulin@sophos.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2651 Lines: 60 Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > On Sunday 13 December 2009 22:56:23 Yinghai Lu wrote: >> Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: >>> On Sunday 13 Dec 2009 09:25:33 Yinghai Lu wrote: >>>> On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 12:26 AM, Tvrtko Ursulin > wrote: >>>>> reg00: base=0x000000000 ( 0MB), size= 2048MB, count=1: write-back >>>>> reg01: base=0x080000000 ( 2048MB), size= 1024MB, count=1: write-back >>>>> reg02: base=0x0c0000000 ( 3072MB), size= 256MB, count=1: write-back >>>>> reg03: base=0x0f0000000 ( 3840MB), size= 128MB, count=1: >>>>> write-combining >>>>> >>>>> Still looks like from 3328MB to 3840MB is of status unknown? >>>>> >>>>> dmesg in that case: >>> [ 0.250038] node 0 link 0: io port [1000, ffffff] >>> [ 0.250040] TOM: 00000000e0000000 aka 3584M >>> [ 0.250041] Fam 10h mmconf [e0000000, efffffff] >>> [ 0.250043] node 0 link 0: mmio [a0000, bffff] >>> [ 0.250045] node 0 link 0: mmio [e0000000, efffffff] ==> none >>> [ 0.250047] node 0 link 0: mmio [f0000000, fe7fffff] >>> [ 0.250048] node 0 link 0: mmio [fe800000, fe9fffff] >>> [ 0.250050] node 0 link 0: mmio [fea00000, ffefffff] >>> [ 0.250051] TOM2: 0000000120000000 aka 4608M >>> [ 0.250053] bus: [00,07] on node 0 link 0 >>> [ 0.250054] bus: 00 index 0 io port: [0, ffff] >>> [ 0.250055] bus: 00 index 1 mmio: [a0000, bffff] >>> [ 0.250057] bus: 00 index 2 mmio: [f0000000, ffffffff] >>> [ 0.250058] bus: 00 index 3 mmio: [120000000, fcffffffff] >>> [ 0.250065] ACPI: bus type pci registered >>> [ 0.250088] PCI: Found AMD Family 10h NB with MMCONFIG support. >>> [ 0.250091] PCI: MCFG configuration 0: base e0000000 segment 0 buses 0 >>> - 255 [ 0.250092] PCI: Not using MMCONFIG. >>> [ 0.250094] PCI: Using configuration type 1 for base access >>> [ 0.250095] PCI: Using configuration type 1 for extended access >> something wrong, we should not check that with e820 or acpi resource in >> that case. please check >> >> {PATCH] x86/pci: don't check mmconf again if it is from MSR with amd faml0h >> >> for AMD Fam10h, it we read mmconf from MSR early, we should just trust it >> because we check it and correct it already. >> >> so skip the reject check there. > > [path snipped] > > Do you want me to test with this patch and that pci=.. option active and post > dmesg? Or without the pci=... option? > with this patch and pci=... and post dmesg... Thanks Yinghai -- 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/