Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754691Ab0GBVho (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Jul 2010 17:37:44 -0400 Received: from cpoproxy2-pub.bluehost.com ([67.222.39.38]:33613 "HELO cpoproxy2-pub.bluehost.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1752488Ab0GBVhm convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Jul 2010 17:37:42 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=virtuousgeek.org; h=Received:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:X-Mailer:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Identified-User; b=qA+AigodCAS7vHRRsVTP20goYbyfQ3zNG73XblHWmhIzL+TVylqGUpwghTid+xVMUQGNXxwhAwKaDpi5QbzqVa9vu9v87hsCFdOEbnktkYZdQC9Dywn1ngXxgE59Sw0q; Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2010 14:35:15 -0700 From: Jesse Barnes To: Ram Pai Cc: Linus Torvalds , linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, clemens@ladisch.de, Yinghai Lu Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] PCI: skip release and reallocation of io port resources Message-ID: <20100702143515.2896d728@virtuousgeek.org> In-Reply-To: <20100630235949.GA5120@us.ibm.com> References: <20100630211516.GA25991@us.ibm.com> <20100630235949.GA5120@us.ibm.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.6 (GTK+ 2.18.9; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-Identified-User: {10642:box514.bluehost.com:virtuous:virtuousgeek.org} {sentby:smtp auth 75.110.194.140 authed with jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org} Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1694 Lines: 44 On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 16:59:49 -0700 Ram Pai wrote: > On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 04:10:26PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 2:15 PM, Ram Pai wrote: > > >       PCI: skip release and reallocation of io port resources > > > > Gaah. This still looks like just total ad-hoc hackery. The logic for > > it all seems very fragile, just a random case made up from the one > > failing issue. There's no underlying logic or design to it. > > > > I still think that we should just make people explicitly ask for a > > blank slate if the bios allocations don't work out. > > and interactively allocate resource? No I don't think we want to add any prompts to the kernel boot process. :) > > Rather than trying > > to fix it up automatically, which has been a total rats nest of random > > crud. > > Can Yinghai Lu's patch 'pci=try=' be some temporary middle ground till > a more elaborate patch is found? > > His suggestion partly meets your suggestion. It does not automatically > reassign unless the user explicitly asks for it. Hence should not > break any working systems, at the same time can handle system like > mine. pci=try just doesn't communicate much, it should be something like pci=override_bios and do as Linus suggests. But we should continue to shoot for not ever having to use that option on normal systems. -- Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center -- 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/