From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from bmailout2.hostsharing.net (bmailout2.hostsharing.net [83.223.78.240]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 095E81F4192 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2025 05:27:17 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=83.223.78.240 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1750224440; cv=none; b=TE2FrLPRhVFVIOwuVRNFfnvnpR71/UHL5tiUjYCayOZm4IlpIMipBJo20O2oJqflmiC2xqk5ASvJjg1JxsZEDtjUH86lp7dL+7uTC2jWHX+8qAjsN62mD/YhrkP3xeL/2ederkDt4pOZgHlxm0nVa6vbxHvaXSLMvAn7jt+rMTk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1750224440; c=relaxed/simple; bh=OiHOH+gOId7nAoNgnk0w09IkkzEN1Ydh9tBfYlBT9H8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=PysW8catP8bM4qRUIDweowOy1iQvOkDuI5ROafPxcA4Y7Hgoe051ylV/iM7eq/wVL6F8EvzTrF1ZrhHaBIWE3W9lQAe9gXLuDbTiPE+58uSK5s/SYZda/z/HB0SzC5QAYV2UdUtbAhYXNtJvYOIetv5ndMtcywMpIKJZtpkZ4ro= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=wunner.de; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=h08.hostsharing.net; arc=none smtp.client-ip=83.223.78.240 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=wunner.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=h08.hostsharing.net Received: from h08.hostsharing.net (h08.hostsharing.net [IPv6:2a01:37:1000::53df:5f1c:0]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "*.hostsharing.net", Issuer "RapidSSL TLS RSA CA G1" (verified OK)) by bmailout2.hostsharing.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0635F200A291; Wed, 18 Jun 2025 07:27:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: by h08.hostsharing.net (Postfix, from userid 100393) id DF26F20D68D; Wed, 18 Jun 2025 07:27:09 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2025 07:27:09 +0200 From: Lukas Wunner To: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org Cc: Ben Hutchings , Bjorn Helgaas , Joerg Roedel , Suravee Suthikulpanit , iommu@lists.linux.dev, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, David Airlie Subject: Re: amd-iommu / agpgart-amd64 problem: Resources present before probing Message-ID: References: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: iommu@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Tue, Jun 17, 2025 at 10:47:48PM +0300, Fedor Pchelkin wrote: > Hello, > > there is a > > [ 0.579232] pci 0000:00:00.2: Resources present before probing > > error message observed after > > commit 3be5fa236649da6404f1bca1491bf02d4b0d5cce > Author: Lukas Wunner > Date: Fri Apr 25 11:24:21 2025 +0200 > > Revert "iommu/amd: Prevent binding other PCI drivers to IOMMU PCI devices" For the record, the reporter of the above-quoted issue appears to be working for an OFAC sanctioned entity: https://sanctionssearch.ofac.treas.gov/Details.aspx?id=50890 This prohibits me from two-way engagement with the reporter: https://www.linuxfoundation.org/blog/navigating-global-regulations-and-open-source-us-ofac-sanctions "Reviewing an unsolicited patch from a contributor in a sanctioned region should generally be fine, but actively engaging them to better understand their issue, diagnose the problem, or help improve a patch or modify code would likely cross the line. If the contributor is linked to a sanctioned entity or region, in general, it is best to keep communications strictly one-way. If a patch is received and you improve it and submit it upstream, that should be fine, but going back and forth in communications with the SDN developer likely would not." Hence I am removing the reporter and the lvc-project@linuxtesting.org address (hosted by ispras.ru) from the To: and Cc: headers. I note that prior to 6fd024893911, the amd64-agp.c driver was only bound to devices with a PCI_CAP_ID_AGP capability. agp_amd64_probe() does check for presence of the capability, but that's too late to avoid the error message emitted by really_probe(). What we could do however is to first check for presence of a device with PCI_CAP_ID_AGP, and only if one is found would we try to bind to any device. That should avoid the message on any halfway modern system. Thoughts? Thanks, Lukas