From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 08:04:07 -0700 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: Mika Westerberg Cc: Jesse Barnes , Bjorn Helgaas , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Yinghai Lu , john.ronciak@intel.com, miles.j.penner@intel.com, bruce.w.allan@intel.com, "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Heikki Krogerus , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] x86/PCI: quirk Thunderbolt PCI-to-PCI bridges Message-ID: <20130626150407.GB14117@kroah.com> References: <1372177330-28013-1-git-send-email-mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com> <1372177330-28013-7-git-send-email-mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com> <20130625141556.2f9de7b1@jbarnes-desktop> <20130626121757.GP9294@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20130626121757.GP9294@intel.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 03:17:57PM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote: > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 02:15:56PM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote: > > On Tue, 25 Jun 2013 19:22:10 +0300 > > Mika Westerberg wrote: > > > > > + if (!(pci_probe & PCI_NOASSIGN_ROMS)) { > > > + pr_info("Thunderbolt host router detected disabling ROMs\n"); > > > + pci_probe |= PCI_NOASSIGN_ROMS; > > > + } > > > > I wonder if this should just be the default on x86? Or do we allocate > > ROM space to address some other platform where we need it and the BIOS > > doesn't do it for the devices we care about? > > Good question. In our case it definitely helps to have pci=norom the > default. Can't tell if it might break something that depends on the current > behaviour. > > Bjorn, Greg, Rafael, > > What do you think? I can't recall any specific reason to not do this, so no objection from me, but make it a nice and small patch that can easily be reverted if problems show up in the wild :) thanks, greg k-h