Ivan Kokshaysky wrote:
On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 02:53:13AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 01:55:36AM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
Unfortunately if this patch does cause any machine to break, these will
be machines that worked fine up until this point, so that would be a
regression, which is worse. Life sucks.
If, after a while, you think the change should go into the -stable tree,
I have no objection.
I think it shouldn't - this change will almost certainly cause a regression.
There is a lot of system devices besides the host bridges that shouldn't be
disabled during BAR probe, like interrupt controllers, power management
controllers and so on.
We need a more sophisticated fix - I'm thinking of introducing "probe" field
in struct pci_dev which can be set by "early" quirk routines.
Disabling the BAR decoding does not mean disabling the device (aside
from the one group of host bridge that apparently disables CPU to RAM
access, whose designers were apparently on crack when they read the PCI
spec and which is why we don't disable the decode on host bridges).
There really is no other sane way to do it.
If we do encounter other devices that choke on having the BAR disabled
during probing then we can add additional quirk logic, but we haven't
run into anything like that yet.
--
Robert Hancock Saskatoon, SK, Canada
To email, remove "nospam" from [email protected]
Home Page: http://www.roberthancock.com/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
