From: David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net>
To: linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [linux-usb-devel] Re: Commit "[PATCH] USB: Always do usb-handoff" breaks my powerbook
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 17:41:56 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200510311741.56638.david-b@pacbell.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1130804214.29054.390.camel@gaston>
On Monday 31 October 2005 4:16 pm, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-10-31 at 16:23 +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> > My G4 powerbook gets a machine check on boot as a result of commit
> > 478a3bab8c87a9ba4a4ba338314e32bb0c378e62. Putting a return at the
> > start of quirk_usb_early_handoff fixes it.
> >
> > The code in quirk_usb_handoff_ohci looks rather bogus in that it
> > doesn't do pci_enable_device before trying to access the device.
No PCI quirk code has ever called pci_enable_device() AFAICT.
Of course the _need_ to do such a thing might be another PPC-specific
(or OpenFirmware-specific?) PCI thing ... we've hit other cases where
PPC breaks things that work on other PCI systems (and vice versa).
> That and it doesn't test if the BARs are assigned at all, doesn't
> request the resources, etc...
If quirk code can't rely on BARs, then the PCI system needs some
basic overhauls ... yes? I mean, how could quirk code ever work
if it can't access the relevant chip registers??
> I'm not sure it's legal to do pci_enable_device() from within a pci
> quirk anyway. I really wonder what that code is doing in the quirks, I
> don't think it's the right place, but I may be wrong.
Erm, what "code is doing" what, that you mean ??
> What is the logic supposed to be there ?
Which logic? The fundamental thing those USB handoff functions do
is make sure that BIOS code lets go of the host controllers. The
main reason it'd be using a controller is because of USB keyboards,
mice, or maybe boot disks. Secondarily, that code needs to make
sure the controller is really quiesced before Linux starts using it.
- Dave
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-11-01 1:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-10-31 5:23 Commit "[PATCH] USB: Always do usb-handoff" breaks my powerbook Paul Mackerras
2005-11-01 0:16 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2005-11-01 1:41 ` David Brownell [this message]
2005-11-01 2:41 ` [linux-usb-devel] " Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2005-11-01 3:09 ` David Brownell
2005-11-01 3:30 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2005-11-01 4:17 ` David Brownell
2005-11-01 4:52 ` Paul Mackerras
2005-11-01 5:08 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2005-11-01 9:28 ` Alan Cox
2005-11-01 13:40 ` Glenn Maynard
2005-11-01 21:09 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2005-11-01 3:39 ` Dmitry Torokhov
2005-11-01 4:06 ` Kyle Moffett
2005-11-01 4:39 ` David Brownell
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2005-11-02 4:21 Aleksey Gorelov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200510311741.56638.david-b@pacbell.net \
--to=david-b@pacbell.net \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox