From: Gary Hade <garyhade@us.ibm.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Gary Hade <garyhade@us.ibm.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>,
Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com>,
kernel list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: regression fixed by using pci=rom
Date: Fri, 9 May 2008 11:54:26 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080509185425.GC6255@us.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.1.10.0805091022020.3142@woody.linux-foundation.org>
On Fri, May 09, 2008 at 10:26:47AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 9 May 2008, Gary Hade wrote:
> >
> > Ingo, Would you (or others listening to this discussion) know
> > exactly what Windows does with respect to BIOS unassigned
> > expansion ROMs?
>
> Nobody really seems to know what windows does for *any* resources. And it
> probably depends on windows version too, and on detailed chipset issues
> (ie does Windows do the same thing as Linux wrt transparent bridges that
> still have bus translation resources set up?).
>
> So the "try to do what Windows does" is something we strive for in
> particular cases, but it's not an absolute thing, and probably can never
> even be that in theory. It's more a guideline, especially when we don't
> know which particular choice is better and both seem otherwise equally
> good.
>
> But "doesn't work" always trumps "that's what windows does". Because even
> if something works under Windows, sometimes Linux drivers simply then act
> differently (ie they may use PIO vs MMIO, or in the case of graphics they
> may need ROMs for re-POST'ing while a windows driver is written by the
> chipset vendor and DTRT without even looking at the BIOS tables)
Yea, this is probably a good explanation of why Windows does run,
presumably without PCI resource allocation issues, on those same
systems where we have struggling with the expansion ROM resource
allocation failures from Linux.
Thanks.
Gary
--
Gary Hade
System x Enablement
IBM Linux Technology Center
503-578-4503 IBM T/L: 775-4503
garyhade@us.ibm.com
http://www.ibm.com/linux/ltc
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-05-09 18:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-05-08 23:54 regression fixed by using pci=rom Dave Airlie
2008-05-09 0:17 ` Jesse Barnes
2008-05-09 1:46 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-05-09 6:29 ` Jesse Barnes
2008-05-09 16:05 ` Gary Hade
2008-05-09 6:44 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-05-09 16:45 ` Gary Hade
2008-05-09 17:26 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-05-09 18:54 ` Gary Hade [this message]
2008-05-09 1:36 ` Linus Torvalds
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=20080509185425.GC6255@us.ibm.com \
--to=garyhade@us.ibm.com \
--cc=airlied@gmail.com \
--cc=jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/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