From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CE23C04FDE for ; Fri, 9 Dec 2022 11:08:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229680AbiLILIU (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Dec 2022 06:08:20 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:39160 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229573AbiLILIT (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Dec 2022 06:08:19 -0500 Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C976186CD for ; Fri, 9 Dec 2022 03:08:19 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1670584099; x=1702120099; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=jJcAVWv+5ov0QpWm3n/1iYUifmF8kgETgiABcTw2AhA=; b=kV++OzfrVVLsf6rceHMXYXM/seIGFD44MnCLTls7wFT4qfUa1+6PAO34 9K0nS3q+hbpvpY3xoycafZoDRaHMDrYstzcOoMY0qbWGAmS/jAtVdvyUQ py7cVpc7KBCu7hzst/kZMFTvIiW2aDeP1nPyjewrP3IukukhTnCeCkS3q bYsUqOtu0qv2N0iGt8xqwu1TlaXgEDCPod1eJikR71zGHpPW1pj+CZkkz ObgwIjEpMpx8M0yvhC65FRhwc1DBNkGX4j0RApGs5Utzt2LO1dH4Te85T /EJX2D8+JUT1JTg48vV9rPplFPwqtuUkE+XUr4bO98VeUNftbUwwTMmzR w==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6500,9779,10555"; a="318589124" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.96,230,1665471600"; d="scan'208";a="318589124" Received: from orsmga006.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.51]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 09 Dec 2022 03:08:18 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6500,9779,10555"; a="625082504" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.96,230,1665471600"; d="scan'208";a="625082504" Received: from black.fi.intel.com ([10.237.72.28]) by orsmga006.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 09 Dec 2022 03:08:17 -0800 Received: by black.fi.intel.com (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 5302F179; Fri, 9 Dec 2022 13:08:45 +0200 (EET) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2022 13:08:45 +0200 From: Mika Westerberg To: Alex Williamson Cc: Lukas Wunner , Bjorn Helgaas , Bjorn Helgaas , linux-pci@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: PCI resource allocation mismatch with BIOS Message-ID: References: <20221129064812.GA1555@wunner.de> <20221129065242.07b5bcbf.alex.williamson@redhat.com> <20221129084646.0b22c80b.alex.williamson@redhat.com> <20221129160626.GA19822@wunner.de> <20221129091249.3b60dd58.alex.williamson@redhat.com> <20221130074347.GC8198@wunner.de> <20221130084738.57281dac.alex.williamson@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org Hi, On Thu, Dec 01, 2022 at 11:41:18AM +0200, Mika Westerberg wrote: > > Otherwise I think we'd need a log of all BIOS vs Linux resource > > allocations from the root port down to see what might be the issue with > > the rescan. Thanks, > > Sure, I will share dmesg from that system showing the initial allocation > and the re-scan as soon as I get confirmation that there is nothing > under embargo in there. Sorry for the delay. Took some time to get all the confirmations. I created a bug here: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216795 I also attached relevant dmesg and lspci outputs. I have now access to the system so I can do additional testing as needed. Thanks!