From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755628Ab0DWXoy (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Apr 2010 19:44:54 -0400 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:48747 "EHLO mail.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750910Ab0DWXov (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Apr 2010 19:44:51 -0400 Message-ID: <4BD230C9.3090309@zytor.com> Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 16:44:09 -0700 From: "H. Peter Anvin" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100330 Fedora/3.0.4-1.fc12 Thunderbird/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bjorn Helgaas CC: Andy Isaacson , "R. Andrew Bailey" , Yinghai , 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 References: <4BC4E55B.7000103@oracle.com> <4BCE8E3E.4030809@oracle.com> <20100421193120.GD11130@hexapodia.org> <201004231705.25659.bjorn.helgaas@hp.com> In-Reply-To: <201004231705.25659.bjorn.helgaas@hp.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 04/23/2010 04:05 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Wednesday 21 April 2010 01:31:20 pm Andy Isaacson wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 10:33:50PM -0700, Yinghai wrote: >>> Update e820 at first, and later put them resource tree. >>> Reserved that early, will not be allocated to unassigned PCI BAR >>> >>> v3: remove probe_roms() that is not needed, because whole range is reserved >>> already >> >> Test booted this patch series on the problematic t3400, seems to work >> fine. dmesg attached to bug 15744. > > Thanks for testing (again). I'm not confident that this series is > going to be successful, so I started looking for other approaches. > > I can't reproduce the exact problem you're seeing, but in my > kludged-up attempt, the patch below is enough to keep us from > assigning the space below 1MB to a device. > > Would you guys (Andy & Andy, what a coincidence :-)) mind giving > it a try? This is intended to work on top of current upstream, > with no other patches required. > This certainly wins from a simplicity standpoint! -hpa