From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bjorn Helgaas Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pm tree with the pci tree Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 09:52:40 -0700 Message-ID: References: <20121106134826.32a117100825204d48150f0b@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Return-path: Received: from mail-wi0-f172.google.com ([209.85.212.172]:49408 "EHLO mail-wi0-f172.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752367Ab2KFQxB (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Nov 2012 11:53:01 -0500 Received: by mail-wi0-f172.google.com with SMTP id hq12so4481711wib.1 for ; Tue, 06 Nov 2012 08:53:00 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20121106134826.32a117100825204d48150f0b@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Feng Tang On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 7:48 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Rafael, > > Today's linux-next merge of the pm tree got a conflict in > arch/x86/pci/acpi.c between commit 3f385fa9edce ("x86/PCI: Ignore _SEG on > HP xw9300") from the pci tree and commit 97a7108a3c00 ("ACPI / x86: Add > quirk for "CheckPoint P-20-00" to not use bridge _CRS_ info") from the pm > tree. > > I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action > is required). My opinion was that we should just drop the CheckPoint quirk. See https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=47981#c36 for my rationale. The changelog of the quirk leaves the wrong impression: This is to fix a regression https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=47981 The CheckPoint P-20-00 works ok before new machines (2008 and later) are forced to use the bridge _CRS info by default in 2.6.34. Add this quirk to restore its old way of working: not using bridge _CRS info. This is NOT a regression, at least not in the usual sense. The CheckPoint BIOS has a serious defect that corrupts part of the DSDT. It happened that things "worked" when we ignored the _CRS that was corrupted (other things are almost certainly broken, but we don't know what they are yet). And it's not a question of being "forced" to use the bridge _CRS. Every system SHOULD be using _CRS; that's the only way we can correctly manage resources of ACPI devices. But if you (Rafael) decide we should keep this, I won't object. The conflict resolution looks fine to me. > diff --cc arch/x86/pci/acpi.c > index 49e5195,7010c19..0000000 > --- a/arch/x86/pci/acpi.c > +++ b/arch/x86/pci/acpi.c > @@@ -106,16 -98,16 +106,27 @@@ static const struct dmi_system_id pci_c > DMI_MATCH(DMI_BIOS_VERSION, "6JET85WW (1.43 )"), > }, > }, > + > + /* https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15362 */ > + { > + .callback = set_ignore_seg, > + .ident = "HP xw9300", > + .matches = { > + DMI_MATCH(DMI_SYS_VENDOR, "Hewlett-Packard"), > + DMI_MATCH(DMI_PRODUCT_NAME, "HP xw9300 Workstation"), > + }, > + }, > ++ > + /* https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=47981 */ > + { > + .callback = set_nouse_crs, > + .ident = "CheckPoint P-20-00", > + .matches = { > + DMI_MATCH(DMI_SYS_VENDOR, "CheckPoint"), > + DMI_MATCH(DMI_PRODUCT_NAME, "P-20-00"), > + DMI_MATCH(DMI_BOARD_NAME, "Bridgeport"), > + }, > + }, > {} > }; >