From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Russell King Subject: Re: [patch 0/4] RFC: PCI: consolidate several pcibios_enable_resources() implementations Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 08:09:47 +0000 Message-ID: <20080219080947.GB20893@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <20080219043952.845136014@ldl.fc.hp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-pci@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, 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 To: Bjorn Helgaas Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20080219043952.845136014@ldl.fc.hp.com> List-ID: List-Id: linux-parisc.vger.kernel.org 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 ARM does this because there is nothing else which would do that - which means devices behind bridges would be completely inaccessible. > - PA-RISC always turns on SERR and PARITY, which no other arch does ARM also does this, unless pdev_bad_for_parity(dev) is true. See ARMs pcibios_fixup_bus(). > Should other arches do the same thing, or are these somehow related to > ARM and PA-RISC architecture? I suspect they're architecture specific; I wouldn't like to do either on x86, but they're either required or preferred on ARM. -- Russell King Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/ maintainer of: