From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755240Ab0DZUh7 (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Apr 2010 16:37:59 -0400 Received: from cpoproxy3-pub.bluehost.com ([67.222.54.6]:47280 "HELO outbound-mail-313.bluehost.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1755197Ab0DZUh5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Apr 2010 16:37:57 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=virtuousgeek.org; h=Received:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:X-Mailer:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Identified-User; b=fEYTnSre6T/asB/yfyjTAzSobhmRhhOgd1NZ18VSADOh0A8GV2DUDqr1yvmc6EzCgiajHUOiVg/3+oEunlQ/d/+zHUZfAaB3FdPRYV9pXgE6holHAHLURjL+rj4UsY7X; Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 13:37:57 -0700 From: Jesse Barnes To: Bjorn Helgaas Cc: Andy Isaacson , "R. Andrew Bailey" , Yinghai , "H. Peter Anvin" , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , guenter.roeck@ericsson.com, Linus Torvalds , "linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" , "x86@kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Thomas Renninger , yaneti@declera.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/PCI: never allocate PCI MMIO resources below BIOS_END Message-ID: <20100426133757.3e1d0a75@virtuousgeek.org> In-Reply-To: <201004261427.57229.bjorn.helgaas@hp.com> References: <4BC4E55B.7000103@oracle.com> <20100426183436.GV11130@hexapodia.org> <20100426123135.5d095d2f@virtuousgeek.org> <201004261427.57229.bjorn.helgaas@hp.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.5 (GTK+ 2.18.9; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Identified-User: {10642:box514.bluehost.com:virtuous:virtuousgeek.org} {sentby:smtp auth 75.110.194.140 authed with jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org} Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 14:27:56 -0600 Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > I'm a little concerned that those patches are a sledgehammer approach. > Previously, IORESOURCE_BUSY has basically been used for mutual exclusion > between drivers that would otherwise claim the same resource. It hasn't > been used to guide resource assignment in the PCI/PNP/etc core. Maybe > it's a good idea to also use IORESOURCE_BUSY there, but I'm not sure. > Right now it feels like undesirable overloading to me. I guess that's true, removing those regions from the pool entirely might be better? Or some other, clear way of expressing that the regions aren't available to drivers. Maybe we need a new IO resource type for platform ranges. > I think it also leads to at least one problem: Guenter's machine has no > VGA but has a PCI device that lives at 0xa0000. The driver for that > device won't be able to request that region if the arch code has marked > it busy. Ah good point, so we'll want another approach at any rate. Yinghai? -- Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center