From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alan Subject: Re: What is the correct way to indicate an unassigned PCI resource ? Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 14:44:11 +0000 Message-ID: <20061204144411.246f3700@localhost.localdomain> References: <20061130165202.GA23205@aepfle.de> <20061204123854.GA28159@aepfle.de> <4574197A.2020204@ru.mvista.com> <4FC2EBCF-C927-435A-9BE3-E4403AFC042D@kernel.crashing.org> <45741DDE.4080509@ru.mvista.com> <20061204132124.4f7c50a9@localhost.localdomain> <45742253.1000807@ru.mvista.com> <20061204142201.68d9621f@localhost.localdomain> <457431FE.6040702@ru.mvista.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <457431FE.6040702@ru.mvista.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linuxppc-dev-bounces+glppd-linuxppc64-dev=m.gmane.org@ozlabs.org Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+glppd-linuxppc64-dev=m.gmane.org@ozlabs.org To: Sergei Shtylyov Cc: Olaf Hering , linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, greg@kroah.com, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org > When Linus remaps IRQ0 on x86, I'll follow that code as a testament. Until > this happens, I consider is just an opinion. Forcing every arch but x86 to > remap IRQ0 is an example of the double standards. Yawn.. x86 does not expose IRQ 0 outside of arch specific code. > > The checks need pushing upwards and removing from their current place - > > the pci layer should check the resource length, the isa pnp should I > > believe check for zero address etc. > > So, it's OK to remove the base *address* check in ide_hwif_confiure() > altogether? IFF you move all the other checks, verify their correctness and then get them tested for a while yes > > libata makes a similar assumption in ata_resources_present() as someone > > (GregKH ???) needs to define what the proper way to encode "resource not > > allocated" into the PCI resources should be. > > > If someone on the PCI list (cc'd) or Greg can give a definitive answer then we can go fix the > > offenders now. > > Well, I thought that was IORESOURCE_UNSET... It seems to depend which line of code you ask - hence the question 8(