Jesse Barnes wrote:
On Wednesday, May 2, 2007 7:34 am Robert Hancock wrote:
Jesse Barnes wrote:
On Tuesday, May 01, 2007, Jesse Barnes wrote:
I'm testing it now on my 965...
Bah... nevermind Robert, I see you're doing this already in
pci_mmcfg_reject_broken. I'm about to reboot & test now.
Ok, I've tested a bit on my 965 (after re-adding my old patch to
support it) and the new checks are more complete, but my BIOS still
appears to be buggy.
The extended config space (as defined by the register) is at
0xf0000000 (full value is 0xf0000003 indicating 128M enabled). The
ACPI MCFG table has this space reserved according to Robert's new
code, but the machine hangs due to the address space aliasing
Olivier mentioned awhile back. I don't have a PCIe card to test
with (or any devices that require extended config space that I know
of) so I can't really tell if Windows supports PCIe on this
platform, but if it does I don't see how it would w/o having a full
bridge driver and sophisticated address space allocation builtin.
Windows XP doesn't use MMCONFIG or any extended configuration space.
I believe Vista is supposed to, though. Not sure how they are
handling this issue.
Oh right... Vista will be the first to fully support PCIe & mcfg...
Can you post what your board has for PNPACPI reserved resources (I
believe they're in /sys/devices/pnp0/*/resources IIRC, don't have a
Linux box handy right now). Full dmesg would also be useful, I think
it dumps out those reservations at boot nowadays..
BIOS update didn't help. Here's the boot log and a dump of the pnp0
resources.
Curious.. It looks like the ACPI resources have the correct reservation
for the MMCONFIG window according to what the register says the location
should be. There's no other reservations that overlap with that range
(f000000-f7ffffff), and according to the 965 datasheet there's nothing
that's hard-coded to occupy that memory range. I can't really see what
this range could be conflicting with.
What happens if you take out the chipset register detection, does the
MCFG table give you the same result? Wonder if they're doing something
funny with start/end bus values or something in their table. There's
some code in my patch that prints out the important data from the MCFG
table, can you tell me what that shows with the chipset detection taken out?
If that doesn't provide any useful information, I think we may need some
assistance from Intel chipset/motherboard people to figure out what is
going on here..
--
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]
