From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964852AbVIKQaV (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Sep 2005 12:30:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751034AbVIKQaV (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Sep 2005 12:30:21 -0400 Received: from mail.dvmed.net ([216.237.124.58]:19865 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750737AbVIKQaV (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Sep 2005 12:30:21 -0400 Message-ID: <43245B8F.1070703@pobox.com> Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 12:30:07 -0400 From: Jeff Garzik User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6-1.1.fc4 (X11/20050720) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Linus Torvalds CC: Miguel , akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alan Cox , Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz Subject: Re: PCI bug in 2.6.13 References: <20050909180405.3e356c2a.frankpoole@terra.es> <20050909225956.42021440.akpm@osdl.org> <20050910113658.178a7711.frankpoole@terra.es> <20050911030814.08cbe74c.frankpoole@terra.es> <20050911161058.481d1a75.frankpoole@terra.es> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Sun, 11 Sep 2005, Miguel wrote: > >>After applying this patch I don't see anything new so I have added the >>same WARN_ON in pci_write_config_byte and pci_write_config_word and now >>dmesg shows this: > > > Thanks. Nobody should ever do a byte write to that offset, but clearly > something does. > > And yes, that's what I missed even though I quoted it from the hpt366 > driver (heh, and nobody else noticed either): > > /* FIXME: Not portable */ > if (dev->resource[PCI_ROM_RESOURCE].start) > pci_write_config_byte(dev, PCI_ROM_ADDRESS, > dev->resource[PCI_ROM_RESOURCE].start | PCI_ROM_ADDRESS_ENABLE); > > I wonder how long that has been like that. > > Change the pci_write_config_byte() into a pci_write_config_dword(), and I > bet it works. > > However, I _also_ suspect it works if you remove those lines entirely. I > don't see why it tries to enable the ROM in the first place - it doesn't > seem to be _using_ it. I can't figure out what's going on in hpt driver, either. Just checked in 2.2 (not present) and 2.4 (same write-byte code). Maybe Alan or Bart has details? Jeff