From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: [Bug #15124] PCI host bridge windows ignored (works with pci=use_crs) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 02:45:08 +0000 Message-ID: <20100131024508.GA9334@srcf.ucam.org> References: <201001271345.54454.bjorn.helgaas@hp.com> <201001271403.41955.bjorn.helgaas@hp.com> <4B60CD99.7020305@kernel.org> <1264652762.24020.5.camel@dc7800.home> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1264652762.24020.5.camel-s4l7/+/UzmD/9pzu0YdTqQ@public.gmane.org> Sender: kernel-testers-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Bjorn Helgaas Cc: Yinghai Lu , Linus Torvalds , Jesse Barnes , Jeff Garrett , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Kernel Testers List , Linux PCI , Myron Stowe , Ingo Molnar On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 09:26:02PM -0700, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > When ACPI is disabled, I think we just have to accept that we lose some > functionality. I don't see the need for alternate ways to accomplish > everything that ACPI does. It's becoming less and less useful to > disable ACPI; I think it's only interesting as a debugging tool, and > even then it's a sledgehammer. I'd agree with this. The days where it was plausibly practical to boot non-ACPI operating systems on hardware are clearly gone, and people who are actually disabling ACPI in the field seem to be doing so in order to avoid other bugs - and we're failing to fix those bugs as a result. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59-1xO5oi07KQx4cg9Nei1l7Q@public.gmane.org