Date:	Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:13:49 -0400
From:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To:	Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@...com>
CC:	"Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@...ux-mips.org>,
	Sébastien Dugué 
	<sebastien.dugue@...l.net>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: commit 7e92b4fc34 - x86, serial: convert legacy COM ports to
 platform devices - broke my serial console

Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Tuesday 24 July 2007 12:17:36 pm Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Jul 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>>
>>> It seems clear from this report that we cannot, should not, trust BIOS for
>>> something (a) so simple and (b) that has been working for over a decade.
>>  And (c) something BIOS writers have never ever in their most unlikely 
>> imagination expected to be trusted for.
> 
> I don't think it's quite so clear-cut.  It is true that "poke at 0x3e8,
> and if it responds, assume it's a 16550 with IRQ 4" is simple.  But it
> doesn't always work.  Google for "irda setserial" and you'll find many
> cases where the serial driver's blind probe erroneously claims an IRDA
> device.  The SIR mode of IRDA devices is basically 16550-compatible,
> so this wouldn't be a big problem, except that the blind probe often
> assumes the wrong IRQ.  So users have to use setserial to fix up the
> incorrect assumptions made by the blind probe.
> 
> We haven't debugged the problem on Sebastien's machine yet.  I suspect
> we'll find that his serial port *is* described by ACPI, but that there's
> some little difference in the way Linux discovers those devices compared
> to how Windows does it.  If we figure out how to use ACPI more like
> Windows does, I think we'll fix several little issues, including the one
> on Sebastien's machine.

You have not fixed the double-probe problem either.  That should have 
been fixed before 7e92b4fc34 was even considered for upstream.


> We have a whole laundry list of minor issues because we either don't
> listen to the BIOS at all, or we use it differently than Windows does.

Getting [back] to this thread, I know that most versions of Windows poke 
the serial port directly.  It's pretty obvious when running Windows in 
an emulator.


> Here are a few off the top of my head:
> 
>   - IRDA drivers have platform-specific code to "preconfigure" (discover
>     and reprogram) bridges on the way to the IR device
>   - Hardware sensor drivers conflict with ACPI embedded controller
>     drivers, so every once in a while, they return bogus readings

Driver bug, completely unrelated to not "listen[ing] to the BIOS"


>   - PCMCIA devices grab resources already in use by a PNP device,
>     causing the PNP device to stop working

ditto


>   - Linux enumerates CPUs with the MADT; I think Windows uses the ACPI
>     namespace.  Sometimes there are multiple MADTs, and sometimes Linux
>     uses the wrong one.

Color me skeptical.  I think we would have bug reports if we were really 
getting this wrong a lot of the time.


> If we keep papering over these problems by ignoring what ACPI is trying
> to tell us, we're going to be adding machine-specific hacks forever.
> Of course, there are ACPI bugs.  But Windows does rely on ACPI, and
> Microsoft doesn't want to add those per-platform hacks any more than
> we do.  So we might as well try to take advantage of the ACPI testing
> they do.

You seem to be missing that ignoring BIOS is often a VERY GOOD thing, 
that has served us well many many times in the past.

	Jeff


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists