Re: [PATCH] x86/pci: do assign root bus res if _CRS is used

Yinghai Lu
2009-04-27T21:00:16Z

On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 1:39 PM, Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@hp.com> wrote:

>>
>> other system may have broken _CRS.
>
> Do you have examples of problems here, or are you just worried that
> there *may* be problems?
one system with three chains... with pci=use_crs
[ 9.365669] pci_bus 0000:00: resource 0 io: [0x00-0x3af]
[ 9.371065] pci_bus 0000:00: resource 1 io: [0x3e0-0xcf7]
[ 9.376551] pci_bus 0000:00: resource 2 io: [0x3b0-0x3bb]
[ 9.382028] pci_bus 0000:00: resource 3 io: [0x3c0-0x3df]
[ 9.387513] pci_bus 0000:00: resource 4 io: [0xd00-0xefff]
[ 9.393077] pci_bus 0000:00: resource 5 mem: [0x0a0000-0x0bffff]
[ 9.399084] pci_bus 0000:00: resource 6 mem: [0x0d0000-0x0dffff]
[ 9.405089] pci_bus 0000:00: resource 7 mem: [0xdd000000-0xdfffffff]
[ 9.505332] pci_bus 0000:40: resource 0 io: [0x5000-0x8fff]
[ 9.510991] pci_bus 0000:40: resource 1 mem: [0xdb000000-0xdcffffff]
[ 9.553378] pci_bus 0000:80: resource 0 io: [0x1000-0x4fff]
[ 9.559036] pci_bus 0000:80: resource 1 mem: [0xda000000-0xdaffffff]

without that: amd_bus.c will read that from pci conf space
[ 9.310965] pci_bus 0000:00: resource 0 io: [0x9000-0xefff]
[ 9.316621] pci_bus 0000:00: resource 1 io: [0x00-0xfff]
[ 9.322020] pci_bus 0000:00: resource 2 mem: [0xdd000000-0xdfffffff]
[ 9.328373] pci_bus 0000:00: resource 3 mem: [0x0a0000-0x0bffff]
[ 9.334378] pci_bus 0000:00: resource 4 mem: [0xc0000000-0xd9ffffff]
[ 9.340731] pci_bus 0000:00: resource 5 mem: [0xf0000000-0xffffffff]
[ 9.347084] pci_bus 0000:00: resource 6 mem: [0x840000000-0xfcffffffff]
[ 9.444440] pci_bus 0000:40: resource 0 io: [0x5000-0x8fff]
[ 9.450099] pci_bus 0000:40: resource 1 io: [0xf000-0xffff]
[ 9.455757] pci_bus 0000:40: resource 2 mem: [0xdb000000-0xdcffffff]
[ 9.498118] pci_bus 0000:80: resource 0 io: [0x1000-0x4fff]
[ 9.503777] pci_bus 0000:80: resource 1 mem: [0xda000000-0xdaffffff]

>
>> maybe we could try to use DMI whitelist them?
>
> I don't like a whitelist because it requires ongoing maintenance
> for correctly-working machines. A blacklist is nicer because it
> only requires maintenance for *broken* machines. A date-based
> solution would be better from that point of view.

could try apply that in development cycle like -rcX, and disable that
formal release.
so could find more broken system.

YH