From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Tue, 19 Feb 2008 15:30:12 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1]:24994 "EHLO dl5rb.ham-radio-op.net") by ftp.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S20026846AbYBSPaK (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Feb 2008 15:30:10 +0000 Received: from denk.linux-mips.net (denk.linux-mips.net [127.0.0.1]) by dl5rb.ham-radio-op.net (8.14.1/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m1JFU9KT028891; Tue, 19 Feb 2008 15:30:10 GMT Received: (from ralf@localhost) by denk.linux-mips.net (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id m1JFU8WV028883; Tue, 19 Feb 2008 15:30:08 GMT Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 15:30:08 +0000 From: Ralf Baechle To: Sergei Shtylyov Cc: Michael Buesch , linux-mips@linux-mips.org Subject: Re: Linux MIPS PCI resource sanity check Message-ID: <20080219153008.GA28788@linux-mips.org> References: <200802161139.10791.mb@bu3sch.de> <47B6BFD4.5050404@ru.mvista.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <47B6BFD4.5050404@ru.mvista.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 18265 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: ralf@linux-mips.org Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-mips On Sat, Feb 16, 2008 at 01:49:56PM +0300, Sergei Shtylyov wrote: > It makes sure that a PCI resource is allocated (base of 0 means that it's > unallocated due to previously detected resource conlict (or some other > reason). > >> It triggers for me on a BCM4318 device which is behind a BCM4710 PCI bridge. >> r->start is 0 and r->end is 0x1FFF when this triggers. >> If I simply comment out that check the device is detected correctly >> and seems to initialize just fine. > > No, that failnig resource should be relocated. The resources were assigned during the PCI bus scan so at least with the current implementation it's too late to reassign resources. I get the feeling this is an indication of a problem elsewhere. Ralf