Re: [Bug #15124] PCI host bridge windows ignored (works with pci=use_crs)

Yinghai Lu
2010-01-28T05:53:51Z

On 01/27/2010 08:26 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-01-27 at 15:34 -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> On 01/27/2010 01:03 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>>> On Wednesday 27 January 2010 01:50:12 pm Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, 27 Jan 2010, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Without intel_bus.c, we essentially assume config 1 all the time.
>>>>> If we keep intel_bus.c and this patch for .33, things should work
>>>>> for configs 1 and 4. Adding support for config 4 is good.
>>>>
>>>> Quite frankly, is there any major downside to just disabling/removing
>>>> intel_bus.c for 2.6.33? If we're not planning on having it in the long run
>>>> anyway - or even if we are, but we can't be really happy about the state
>>>> of it as it would be in 2.6.33, not using it at all seems to be the
>>>> smaller headache.
>>>>
>>>> The machines that it helps are also the machines where you can fix things
>>>> up with 'use_csr', no? And they are pretty rare, and they didn't use to
>>>> work without that use_csr in 2.6.32 either, so it's not even a regression.
>>>>
>>>> Am I missing something?
>>>
>>> Only that when we added intel_bus.c, Yinghai reported that the reason
>>> was because a machine had a broken _CRS, so "pci=use_crs" wouldn't help.
>>>
>>> At the time, Windows hadn't been brought up on that box. My
>>> speculation is that by now, they've done that bringup and probably
>>> fixed the _CRS issue, so it might work now.
>>>
>>> If that's the case, we could drop intel_bus.c from .33 and just use
>>> "pci=use_crs" on those boxes until we can figure out how to turn it
>>> on automatically.
>>
>> BIOS fixed that problem already. but
>> 1. how to turn that pci=use_crs for that box automatically ?
>> how about our other kind of boxes?
>
> Yes, we need a way to turn on "pci=use_crs" automatically. My first
> thought is to turn it on for all BIOSes with dates of 2010 or later, and
> in addition, have a whitelist of the pre-2010 machines that require it.
>
>> 2. how about when apci is disabled?
>
> 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.

some systems when acpi is enabled could have interrupt storm.
and have to disable acpi.

YH