From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759659AbXE3Xcd (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 May 2007 19:32:33 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1759050AbXE3XcS (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 May 2007 19:32:18 -0400 Received: from shawidc-mo1.cg.shawcable.net ([24.71.223.10]:30237 "EHLO pd2mo3so.prod.shaw.ca" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754525AbXE3XcO (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 May 2007 19:32:14 -0400 Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 17:31:52 -0600 From: Robert Hancock Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm] 0/2: PCI MMCONFIG-related updates In-reply-to: <200705300821.11555.jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org> To: Jesse Barnes Cc: linux-kernel , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds Message-id: <465E0968.90707@shaw.ca> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit References: <465CF712.2010604@shaw.ca> <200705300821.11555.jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Jesse Barnes wrote: > On Tuesday, May 29, 2007 9:01:22 Robert Hancock wrote: >> These two patches implement some changes in behavior related to PCI >> MMCONFIG configuration space access. One changes the way in which we >> validate the MCFG table provided by the BIOS by checking it against >> ACPI motherboard resources instead of the E820 table. The BIOS is not >> required to reserve this area in the E820 table, so checking that >> results in MMCONFIG being unnecessarily disabled on some machines. >> >> Some Intel chipsets where MMCONFIG was being disabled previously >> (but won't be with the first patch) had problems, not due to the >> MCFG table being broken, but because the access was hosed by the way >> in which we do PCI BAR sizing. The second patch fixes this problem. >> >> This is requested for inclusion in the -mm tree for testing. > > Robert, should we also pull in the 915 and 965 chipset specific register > poking code? It might be a good sanity check against ACPI (i.e. if ACPI and > the actual register window disagree, we can assume the BIOS is broken and > MCFG is not safe to use). If so, I'll update and repost them against your > patchset. Probably not a bad idea.. -- Robert Hancock Saskatoon, SK, Canada To email, remove "nospam" from hancockr@nospamshaw.ca Home Page: http://www.roberthancock.com/