From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161104AbWGNOP5 (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Jul 2006 10:15:57 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030454AbWGNOP5 (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Jul 2006 10:15:57 -0400 Received: from mx1.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:58567 "EHLO mx1.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030453AbWGNOP4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Jul 2006 10:15:56 -0400 From: Andi Kleen To: Chuck Ebbert <76306.1226@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: [patch, take 3] PCI: use ACPI to verify extended config space on x86 Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 16:15:41 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.3 Cc: Arjan van de Ven , linux-pci , Greg KH , Andrew Morton , "Brown, Len" , Rajesh Shah , linux-kernel References: <200607141000_MC3-1-C4FF-945F@compuserve.com> In-Reply-To: <200607141000_MC3-1-C4FF-945F@compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200607141615.41338.ak@suse.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Friday 14 July 2006 15:57, Chuck Ebbert wrote: > In-Reply-To: <1152869988.3159.25.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> > > On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 11:39:48 +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > > > Extend the verification for PCI-X/PCI-Express extended config > > > space pointer. Checks whether the MCFG address range is listed > > > as a motherboard resource, per the PCI firmware spec. > > > > I'm still not quite happy about this; the entire point of the check is > > that we CAN'T trust the ACPI implementation, and want a second opinion. > > This patch basically asks the ACPI implementation if we can trust the > > ACPI implementation. I'm not sure that's a good idea. > > And I understood that most issues went away with the more relaxed check > > that is in gregkh's tree already (if not in mainline, I should check > > that). > > The more-relaxed check is in mainline. I wrote it, but it didn't even > fix the problem on my own machine. Why did you submit it then when it didn't work? > This did. > > According to Rajesh, the spec doesn't require the MCFG space to be > e820-reserved, so that's not really a valid check. Anyways Rajesh's patch is probably the way to go. If the ACPI implementatin is self consistent it can be probably trusted. The e820 check was just a heuristic and it clearly wasn't a good one. -Andi