From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2990267A76 for ; Tue, 11 Apr 2006 11:35:01 +1000 (EST) Subject: Re: Oops: machine check, sig: 7 [#1] - 16-bit Pccard - SOLVED!!! From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: Daniel Ritz In-Reply-To: <200604092257.52206.daniel.ritz-ml@swissonline.ch> References: <200604092257.52206.daniel.ritz-ml@swissonline.ch> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 11:30:14 +1000 Message-Id: <1144719014.19353.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Edward Felberbaum , linux-pcmcia@lists.infradead.org, paulus@samba.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > > I see from the dmesg output from my original post that memory ranges > > 0xfdd7f000 and 0xfddff000 are used by the Gatwick and Heathrow mac io > > controllers. That explains the conflict with PCMCIA over 0xfd000000. > > interesting...the memory ranges are used by other devices yet the > request_resource() call in PCMCIA succeeds,,,and PCI resources shoudn't > be there in the first place then... > > ok, it's in file arch/powerpc/platforms/powermac/feature.c... > i can't see any request_resource() calls in there...so CC'ing the PPC guys.. > they can sure comment... Most of the macio stuff is in drivers/macintosh/macio_asic.c ... the whole macio itself is a PCI device and thus should already "occupy" it's possibly address range... > > > > Question, can I minimize the range of memory that is reserved 0xffffff - or > > is it a waste of time? > > > > yeah, you probably could, but it sounds like a waste of time... > > > Eddie > > > > rgds > -daniel