Re: [patch 2.6.12 (repost w/ corrected subject)] pci: restore BAR values in pci_enable_device_bars

[Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru>]

On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 10:46:20PM +0100, Russell King wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 09:05:55PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > 64-bit BARs work fine on 64-bit machines.  I'm ambivalent whether we
> > ought to support 64-bit BARs on 32-bit machines.
> 
> This only occurs because the problematical functions (eg,
> pci_update_resource) probably aren't called on 64-bit machines - if
> they were, they'd zero the upper 32-bits.  Maybe 64-bit machines are
> happy with that anyway?

Why problematical? It's just the way how linux has always dealt with
64-bit BARs - put everything below 4G in the bus address space, on *any*
architecture. I'd be quite surprised if some firmware doesn't do the same
thing - so far I haven't heard any complaints.
Eventually we'll have to support MMIO above 4G, but I suspect this won't
be necessary at least in a next couple of years. Anyway, there are no
fundamental changes required for the generic PCI layer to handle that,
just some tweaks here and there - almost all non-trivial stuff will be
arch-specific.

> Rather than reimplementing the internals of pci_update_resource() it
> may be worth splitting the common stuff out so it gets fixed for both
> pci_update_resource() and pci_enable_device().

Just use pci_update_resource().

John, I'd also suggest following changes to the patch:
- move the code to pci_set_power_state(), where it belongs to;
- explicitly check for D3hot->D0 transition *and* for the
  No_Soft_Reset bit, to avoid unnecessary config space accesses;
- add a quote from PCI spec (as a comment) explaining why is it needed.

Ivan.
-
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/