From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from colo.lackof.org ([198.49.126.79]:58019 "EHLO colo.lackof.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752436AbYBTGZN (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Feb 2008 01:25:13 -0500 Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 23:24:55 -0700 From: Grant Grundler Subject: Re: [patch 0/4] RFC: PCI: consolidate several pcibios_enable_resources() implementations Message-ID: <20080220062455.GB6315@colo.lackof.org> References: <20080219043952.845136014@ldl.fc.hp.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080219043952.845136014@ldl.fc.hp.com> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Bjorn Helgaas Cc: linux-pci@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Russell King , linux-arm-kernel@lists.arm.linux.org.uk, Kyle McMartin , Matthew Wilcox , Grant Grundler , linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, Paul Mackerras , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Chris Zankel On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 09:39:52PM -0700, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > There are many implementations of pcibios_enable_resources() that differ > in minor ways that look more like bugs than architectural differences. > This patch series consolidates most of them to use the x86 version. > > This series is for discussion only at this point. I'm interested in > feedback about whether any of the differences are "real" and need to > be preserved. > > ARM and PA-RISC, in particular, have interesting differences: > - ARM always enables bridge devices, which no other arch does > - PA-RISC always turns on SERR and PARITY, which no other arch does > > Should other arches do the same thing, or are these somehow related to > ARM and PA-RISC architecture? My impression was most x86 BIOS's did NOT turn on SERR/PERR when I added that code to parisc-linux port (2000 or 2001 so) . HPUX was turning on SERR/PERR and so I was comfortable the HW was stable and it not crash under normal use unless something was really broken. There is certainly nothing architectural specific about SERR/PERR. I felt (at the time) this is more of a case of "if it's not reported to the user, we won't get blamed for it not working well." hth, grant