Re: [PATCH 1/3] PCI: Rework default handling of suspend and resume

[Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>]

On Saturday, December 6, 2008 10:00 am Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Dec 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > So, to fix the issue at hand, I'd like the $subject patch to go first. 
> > Then, there is a major update of the new framework waiting for .29 in the
> > Greg's tree (that's the main reason why nobody uses it so far, BTW) and
> > I'd really prefer it to go next.  After it's been merged, I'm going to
> > add the mandatory suspend-resume things (save state and go to a low power
> > state on suspend, restore state on resume) to the new framework in a
> > separete patch.
> >
> > Is this plan acceptable?
>
> Sounds good to me. And assuming Jesse/Greg are all aboard, I'll just wait
> for the pull requests from Jesse and Greg.
>
> The only thing I'll do right now is to send off my "print out ICH6+
> LPC resources" patch again to Jesse, with a changelog etc. It can probably
> go in as-is (it really just adds printk's), but since it didn't matter
> anyway we migth as well just do it as a PCI thing for 2.6.29 too.

Ok, I applied the set (Rafael's 1-2 and your ICH patch) to my linux-next 
branch.  We should get a little build coverage this week at least, hopefully 
nothing breaks too badly.

> On a similar note, I wonder what we should do about the whole "transparent
> bridge resource allocation" thing. It also didn't end up really mattering,
> even if it apparently made a difference for Frans. The question is just
> whether we would be better off with IO windows for transparent buses (the
> way we try to set things up now), or with a simpler PCI resource tree that
> just takes advantage of the transparency.
>
> The bridge windows _may_ result in better PCI throughput behind such a
> bridge, so there is some argument for keeping them. On the other hand,
> transparent bridges aren't generally for high-performance stuff anyway,
> and one advantage of the transparency is the flexibility it allows (ie we
> don't _need_ to set up the static bridging windows).
>
> I dunno. I wonder what Windows does. Following Windows in areas like this
> tends to have the advantage that it's what the firmware and the hardware
> has generally been tested with most. At the same time, I'm not sure this
> is necessarily a very bug-prone area for either firmware or hardware. If
> there's actual bridge bugs wrt the windows, I suspect such a bridge would
> be broken enough to be unusable regardless.

Just so happens that I'm working with some people internally on transparent 
bridge related issues atm, I'll see what I can dig up.

-- 
Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center