Re: [PATCH 1/1] PCI: tune up ICH4 quirk for broken BIOSes

[Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@gmail.com>]

On 02/08/2011 10:20 PM, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 10:55:01 +0100
> Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 01/14/2011 05:10 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>>> On Friday, January 14, 2011 03:31:16 am Jiri Slaby wrote:
>>>> On 01/14/2011 01:15 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@hp.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think we're back to the question of why we have the ICH4 quirk in
>>>>>> the first place, and I don't know the answer to that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Iirc, there were several laptops that didn't have the ACPI region
>>>>> mentioned in any of the regular places, and we'd allocate the PCMCIA
>>>>> IO region on top of them. The machine would boot, but if anybody ever
>>>>> inserted a PCCard into the machine, the first access to the IO region
>>>>> would generally just halt it (because it was trying to read the
>>>>> PCCard, but the APCI region decodes first, and then the read from that
>>>>> usually put the CPU in a sleep state that it would never wake up from
>>>>> for obvious reasons).
>>>>>
>>>>> So we do want the ICH4 quirk.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, this is an "official" way how ICH4 (and later) advertises the region.
>>>
>>> The quirk is a bug workaround, *not* the "official, planned" way to
>>> deal with these regions.  The official way is to use ACPI, because
>>> that's a generic way that doesn't require changes for new versions
>>> of ICH.
>>
>> Ok, I understand that. For non-ACPI setups this is probably the only
>> place to look at.
>>
>> Anyway, has anybody had a chance to look at the patches? Any comments,
>> nacks/acks?
>>
>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/1/14/115
>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/1/14/113
>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/1/14/114
> 
> I don't have a problem making the quirk quirkier, but it would be nice
> to get rid of the need for it entirely (though we can leave that to
> Bjorn :). Can you re-submit these three against my linux-next branch?

Ok, I can. But do you want solution 113 or 114 -- they solve the same,
but in a different manner?

thanks,
-- 
js