From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932344AbXBNPpG (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Feb 2007 10:45:06 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932345AbXBNPpG (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Feb 2007 10:45:06 -0500 Received: from public.id2-vpn.continvity.gns.novell.com ([195.33.99.129]:22401 "EHLO public.id2-vpn.continvity.gns.novell.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932344AbXBNPpF (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Feb 2007 10:45:05 -0500 Message-Id: <45D33CF9.76E4.0078.0@novell.com> X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 7.0.1 Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 15:46:49 +0000 From: "Jan Beulich" To: "Alan" Cc: , Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] adjust legacy IDE resource setting References: <45D33344.76E4.0078.0@novell.com> <20070214154014.7fa76711@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <20070214154014.7fa76711@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >>> Alan 14.02.07 16:40 >>> >On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 15:05:24 +0000 >"Jan Beulich" wrote: > >> The change to force legacy mode IDE channels' resources to fixed >> non-zero values confuses (at least some versions of) X, because the >> values reported by the kernel and those readable from PCI config space >> aren't consistent anymore. Therefore, this patch arranges for the >> respective BARs to also get updated if possible. > >If X is getting confused fix X. Those BARs are *undefined* in legacy >mode. The value in them is undefined, the results that end up there if >you do write to them are undefined too. If X believes those BAR values >blindly it'll do the wrong thing in some freaky cases. > >Which specific versions of X are problematic ? The one I ran into problems with is reporting X Window System Version 6.9.0 Release Date: 21 December 2005 (used in SLES10, the specific package version is xorg-x11-6.9.0-50.14) >As to the implementation: > start and end as passed are the real I/O values so you don't need >to mask them that I can see. The masking is done primarily to (a) calculate the correct length (from a BAR's perspective), as I don't want to write the BAR if its length doesn't match the expectation, and (b) to properly report the new value in the printk. >I've no fundamental problem with writing the BAR values back to avoid >confusing some apparently broken X, but I'd like to know what X, what >circumstances and that X is also getting fixed. Of course I also opened a bug against X, as I too think it's doing something wrong here. Jan