From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752163AbZGPHUm (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Jul 2009 03:20:42 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752083AbZGPHUm (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Jul 2009 03:20:42 -0400 Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:32842 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752082AbZGPHUl (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Jul 2009 03:20:41 -0400 Message-ID: <4A5ED59C.3010805@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 09:24:12 +0200 From: Hans de Goede User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1b3pre) Gecko/20090513 Fedora/3.0-2.3.beta2.fc11 Thunderbird/3.0b2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dan Williams CC: Jon Smirl , Alan Cox , Alan Cox , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: Why do we probe option roms at 2K boundaries? References: <1247698965.3989.1.camel@dwillia2-linux.ch.intel.com> <20090716001016.489fa970@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <9e4733910907151613n777261e5k3e3c1cd646c7922a@mail.gmail.com> <1247702933.4215.4.camel@dwillia2-linux.ch.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <1247702933.4215.4.camel@dwillia2-linux.ch.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi all, On 07/16/2009 02:08 AM, Dan Williams wrote: > On Wed, 2009-07-15 at 16:13 -0700, Jon Smirl wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 7:10 PM, Alan Cox wrote: >>>> interrogating a data structure stored in option-rom memory. My initial >>>> implementation involved blindly scanning from c0000 to f0000 in 512 byte >>>> increments. Neil and others pointed out that this may not be a safe >>> It isn't safe. If you hit certain ISA devices your system will drop dead. >>> OTOH I doubt anyone has an intel matrix raid controller and a WD80x3 on >>> the same box ;) >> Random link from google, slide 21 >> http://download.microsoft.com/download/9/8/f/98f3fe47-dfc3-4e74-92a3-088782200fe7/TWAR05005_WinHEC05.ppt >> >> PCI 3.0+ allows 512b alignment, but you must first make sure you are >> on a PCI 3.0+ system. > > Thanks, I believe this may be the missing difference between my test > system and Hans'. > Probably, I'll happily test any patches for this you come up with, note that I'm leaving for a week of vacation tomorrow, so it might take some time for me to get back to you. Regards, Hans