[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080724223920.1f4dd753@mjolnir.drzeus.cx>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 22:39:20 +0200
From: Pierre Ossman <drzeus-list@...eus.cx>
To: Kenji Kaneshige <kaneshige.kenji@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: post 2.6.26 requires pciehp_slot_with_bus
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 21:38:32 +0900
Kenji Kaneshige <kaneshige.kenji@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> Hi Pierre,
> (Added linux-pci to CC)
>
> Pierre Ossman wrote:
> > Somewhere post 2.6.26, pciehp started whining about not being able to
> > claim the slot and error code -17. It suggested adding
> > "pciehp_slot_with_bus", which actually helped. Still, having a kernel
> > parameter should just be a temporary fix.
>
> The "pciehp_slot_with_bus" option is a workaround for the platforms
> that assign the same physical slot number to multiple slots. If your
> system has PCI chassis and it supports Chassis Number registers,
> maybe one of the solution is using chassis number + slot number as a
> slot name. But I don't have any idea other than "pciehp_slot_with_bus"
> if your system doesn't support chassis number.
>
The what now? :)
This is a laptop with a single expressport that worked fine up until
this merge window. What changed and why is it no longer possible to
support this hardware without a kernel parameter?
Rgds
--
-- Pierre Ossman
Linux kernel, MMC maintainer http://www.kernel.org
rdesktop, core developer http://www.rdesktop.org
WARNING: This correspondence is being monitored by the
Swedish government. Make sure your server uses encryption
for SMTP traffic and consider using PGP for end-to-end
encryption.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (198 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists