Re: [PATCH] x86/pci: don't use crs for root if we only have one root bus

[Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>]

On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 16:54:08 -0700 (PDT)
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> > 
> > Yeah, I think it's reasonable to revert, especially given how we do
> > _CRS handling currently.  I'm hoping at some point we can use the
> > _CRS data to at least augment the configuration we get from
> > hardware, since on some machines it seems to be necessary.
> 
> Agreed. I do think we should take _CRS into account - possibly just
> as a minimal hint to determine which root buses to try to scan (maybe
> we do this already, I really didn't check). Or maybe we could use it
> to extend on our scan information.
> 
> But when it seems to have things like "this bus can forward VGA
> cycles" kind of "resources" (which seems to be the main reason Larry
> Finger has so many of them), then that's just worthless knowledge
> that we're much better off just determining on our own.

Yeah, some of those bits don't seem useful; but OTOH if a given bridge
decodes a certain range in a non-configurable way how else will we get
that info w/o having huge tables of per-chip info?  Those are the sorts
of things I worry about with our current resource handling.  Maybe not
directly _CRS related, but still...

> Anyway, I may feel pretty strongly about things like this, but I'm
> also open to being convinced otherwise for 2.6.32. I wanted to do
> -rc1 today (it's been more than two weeks), and while I don't expect
> -rc1 to be flawless, I also hate to release it with _known_ bugs.

Sure, we'll keep at it and see if we can get something better in place
for .32.

> So partly due to timing, I'd rather revert it, and we can revisit it
> for the next release - whatever the actual end result then will be.
> 
> [ There's a difference between "we're supposed to find and fix bugs
> in the -rc series", and "I release known-buggy -rc1's since we're
> supposed to fix it later". For similar reasons, I hate pulling
> known-buggy stuff during the merge window - it's ok if it shows
> itself to be buggy _later_, but if people send me stuff that they
> know is buggy as they send it to me, then that's a problem. ]

Yeah, 100% agreed.  I didn't hear any reports until after people
started using your tree, so I think this case was handled correctly:
push something that *seems* ok upstream, but with eyes wide open for
the possibility we'd need to revert.

Thanks,
-- 
Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center