From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1766836AbXDSQFx (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Apr 2007 12:05:53 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1766835AbXDSQFx (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Apr 2007 12:05:53 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:57140 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1766836AbXDSQFw (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Apr 2007 12:05:52 -0400 Message-ID: <46279358.1010002@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 12:05:44 -0400 From: Chuck Ebbert Organization: Red Hat User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (X11/20070302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Robert Hancock CC: linux-kernel , Andi Kleen Subject: Re: PCI Express MMCONFIG and BIOS Bug messages.. References: <4626C514.5010605@shaw.ca> In-Reply-To: <4626C514.5010605@shaw.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Robert Hancock wrote: > I've seen a lot of systems (including brand new Xeon-based servers from > IBM and HP) that output messages on boot like: > > PCI: BIOS Bug: MCFG area at f0000000 is not E820-reserved > PCI: Not using MMCONFIG. > > > So Microsoft is explicitly telling the BIOS developers that there is no > need to reserve the MMCONFIG space in the E820 table because Windows > doesn't care. On that basis it doesn't seem like a valid check to > require it to be so reserved, then. > > Really, I think we should be basing this check on whether the > corresponding memory range is reserved in the ACPI resources, like > Windows expects. This does require putting more fingers into ACPI from > this early boot stage, though.. > Intel had posted patches to do exactly that, but they were rejected. I don't remember why now...