Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756813Ab1FUWNH (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Jun 2011 18:13:07 -0400 Received: from isilmar-3.linta.de ([188.40.101.200]:55578 "EHLO linta.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755040Ab1FUWNE (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Jun 2011 18:13:04 -0400 Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 00:13:01 +0200 From: Dominik Brodowski To: Jesse Barnes Cc: Ram Pai , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, svenkatr@ti.com, yinghai@kernel.org, cjb@laptop.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-net-drivers@solarflare.com, bhutchings@solarflare.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] PCI: make cardbus-bridge resources nice-to-have Message-ID: <20110621221301.GA1814@isilmar-3.linta.de> Mail-Followup-To: Dominik Brodowski , Jesse Barnes , Ram Pai , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, svenkatr@ti.com, yinghai@kernel.org, cjb@laptop.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-net-drivers@solarflare.com, bhutchings@solarflare.com References: <1308610037-6261-1-git-send-email-linuxram@us.ibm.com> <1308610037-6261-5-git-send-email-linuxram@us.ibm.com> <20110621075659.GA4620@comet.dominikbrodowski.net> <20110621162321.GB22917@ram-laptop> <20110621143622.1fae90b3@jbarnes-desktop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110621143622.1fae90b3@jbarnes-desktop> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2241 Lines: 46 Hey, On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 02:36:22PM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote: > On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 09:23:21 -0700 > Ram Pai wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 09:57:00AM +0200, Dominik Brodowski wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 03:47:17PM -0700, Ram Pai wrote: > > > > Allocate resources to cardbus bridge only after all other genuine > > > > resources requests are satisfied. Dont retry if resource allocation > > > > for cardbus-bridge fails. > > > > > > Well, for those who use cardbus cards, cardbus resources aren't "nice to > > > have", they are absolutely required. Of course, not all cardbus cards need > > > as many resources as are currently assigned, so I wouldn't oppose a patch > > > which marks _some_ of the currently assigned resources as "nice to have". > > > But this approach -- 0 required, all "nice to have" -- seems wrong to me. > > > > Do you know how much minimal resource is good enough? The value, before > > this patch, was 256 for IO ports and 64M for memory. > > > > BTW: If the BIOS has already assigned enough resources for all the devices on > > the system, no devices will be starved including the cardbus. The OS intervenes > > and is forced to make this hard choice only when it sees unassigned resources to > > some devices along with resource contention. > > Dominik, presumably you have a few good cardbus test machines; can you > give Ram's patches a try? If we know they break existing > configurations, I'm afraid we'll just have to revert the whole > re-allocation patch yet again. If your stuff survives, I'll ping Linus > to see what he thinks, though he'll probably want to revert in any > case... Actually, I only have one cardbus-capable test machine, which does work in very most cases, and also I do care much more about the PCMCIA side of things than the PCI/CardBus side... Therefore, all I could do is some more or less informed guessing about how much minimal resource we should try to allocate... Best, Dominik -- 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/