Re: [Patch 1/1] x86 pci: Add option to not assign BAR's if not already assigned

[Mike Travis <travis@sgi.com>]

Jesse Barnes wrote:
> On Fri, 14 May 2010 15:34:01 -0700
> Mike Travis <travis@sgi.com> wrote:
> 
>>
>> Jesse Barnes wrote:
>>> On Thu, 13 May 2010 14:02:30 -0600
>>> Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@hp.com> wrote:
>>>>>> This issue is not specific to x86, so I don't really like having
>>>>>> the implementation be x86-specific.
>>>>> I agree this isn't a x86 specific issue but given the 'norom'
>>>>> cmdline option is basically doing the same thing (but for pci
>>>>> Expansion ROM BARs) this code was modeled after it.
>>>> IMHO, we should fix both.
>>> Yeah, that would be good.  Mike, have you looked at this at all?
>>>
>>> Also, to clarify, this isn't affecting users today, right?  Or do you
>>> need all this I/O space for multiple IOHs and the drivers that bind to
>>> them in current UV systems?
>> We have customers that want to install more than 16 PCI-e cards right
>> now.  Our window of opportunity closes very soon (days), so either this
>> patch makes it in as is (or something close), or we wait for another
>> release cycle.  UV shipments start this month.
>>
>> [I wouldn't mind working on an improvement for later.]
> 
> Wow and they're using cards that want to use I/O space?  Funky.  It's
> too late to get this into 2.6.34, but that can't be what you were
> expecting... I don't see a problem with getting something like this in
> for 2.6.35.

2.6.35 would be fine.  It's the acceptance that's the key.

And yes, we're using standard cards like everyone else... ;-)

[The message is "UV" is just a really, really big PC. ;-)]

I would appreciate however, some more detail on what's the goal of the
updates to "fix both".  Thanks!

> 
>>> Fundamentally, until we have real dynamic PCI resource management (i.e.
>>> driver hooks for handling relocation, lazy allocation of resources at
>>> driver bind time, etc.) we're going to continue to need hacks like
>>> this.  However, we could make them slightly more automated by making
>>> "nobar" and "norom" the default on systems that typically need them,
>>> maybe with a DMI table.
>> It seems that BIOS changes are much more difficult.  The real solution
>> to this problem is for Card Vendors to not request I/O Bars if they
>> won't be using them.  But that's the hardest option of all to accomplish.
> 
> Right.
>