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 ESMTPS id 81131B6FA7 for ; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:41:57 +1100 (EST) Message-ID: <1330472496.11728.31.camel@pasglop> Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/18] PCI, powerpc: Register busn_res for root buses From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: Bjorn Helgaas Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:41:36 +1100 In-Reply-To: References: <1330395009-29260-1-git-send-email-yinghai@kernel.org> <1330395009-29260-9-git-send-email-yinghai@kernel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Tony Luck , Yinghai Lu , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Dominik Brodowski , Paul Mackerras , Jesse Barnes , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, 2012-02-28 at 16:31 -0700, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > We may need mechanism to say "don't trust this info from the > firmware," but we should be able to figure out a way that doesn't > penalize platforms that do everything correctly. The current patch > breaks these scenarios even when the platform firmware is 100% > correct. On the other hand, our firmwares tend not to be and the vast majority of our platforms have separate bus number domains (In fact I'm not sure whether we have one that actually splits bus numbers or not, maybe some ancient Apple gear, I need to double check). We did use to force renumbering on macs to avoid bus number collisions between domains because of ancient X servers that didn't do domains properly but I think we dropped that. Cheers, Ben.