From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.188]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3611EDDE09 for ; Sat, 17 Nov 2007 08:14:58 +1100 (EST) Message-ID: <473E084B.4080703@anagramm.de> Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 22:14:51 +0100 From: Clemens Koller MIME-Version: 1.0 To: benh@kernel.crashing.org Subject: Re: Latest paulus.git PCI broken on mpc8540? References: <473C7FCC.7050307@anagramm.de> <4E0EFED3-8697-4768-9D89-A2443AEC82A5@kernel.crashing.org> <1195191333.28865.140.camel@pasglop> <1195247357.28865.178.camel@pasglop> In-Reply-To: <1195247357.28865.178.camel@pasglop> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Cc: linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on Embedded PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi, Ben! Benjamin Herrenschmidt schrieb: > On Fri, 2007-11-16 at 13:18 -0600, Kumar Gala wrote: >> >> Well, for one the generic pci code will complain if its not able to >> allocate the resource which is the true failure. >> >> I'm thinking maybe we just make these pr_debug() instead of standard >> printk? > > I was thinking about changing the message to "cannot allocate initial > resource, will reallocate" or something like that. That is, make it > clear it's non fatal. I don't know much of the code, so, propably a stupid question: Can we avoid to do the initial resource allocation, when it's known to fail? It seems to me like things are done twice here: 1. try 2. reallocate 3. retry Regards, -- Clemens Koller _______________________________ R&D Imaging Devices Anagramm GmbH Rupert-Mayer-Str. 45/1 81379 Muenchen Germany http://www.anagramm-technology.com Phone: +49-89-741518-50 Fax: +49-89-741518-19