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 6C053DDE9E for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2008 07:23:15 +1100 (EST) Subject: Re: [patch 4/4] RFC: PCI: consolidate several pcibios_enable_resources() implementations From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: Bjorn Helgaas In-Reply-To: <200802190911.56901.bjorn.helgaas@hp.com> References: <20080219043952.845136014@ldl.fc.hp.com> <20080219044307.878416912@ldl.fc.hp.com> <1203402667.6740.94.camel@pasglop> <200802190911.56901.bjorn.helgaas@hp.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 07:21:43 +1100 Message-Id: <1203452503.18618.8.camel@pasglop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Chris Zankel , Grant Grundler , linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, Matthew Wilcox , Kyle McMartin , linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Paul Mackerras , linux-pci@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz, linux-arm-kernel@lists.arm.linux.org.uk, Russell King Reply-To: benh@kernel.crashing.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > > That is, whatever the arch code decides to use to decide whether > > resources are assigned by firmware or by the first pass assignment code > > or not and collide or not, once that phase is finished (which is the > > case when calling pcibios_enable_device(), having the resource in the > > resource-tree or not is, I believe, the proper way to test whether it's > > a useable resource. > > So should x86 adopt that collision check? I don't hear anything about > actual architecture differences that are behind this implementation > difference. Well, on powerpc we do allow under some circumstances a 0 start value in BARs, which is why I wanted to use a different check. Ben.