[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090716001016.489fa970@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 00:10:16 +0100
From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: Why do we probe option roms at 2K boundaries?
> interrogating a data structure stored in option-rom memory. My initial
> implementation involved blindly scanning from c0000 to f0000 in 512 byte
> increments. Neil and others pointed out that this may not be a safe
It isn't safe. If you hit certain ISA devices your system will drop dead.
OTOH I doubt anyone has an intel matrix raid controller and a WD80x3 on
the same box ;)
> Recently Hans has been working to get Fedora up and running on a recent
> Intel software RAID platform and noticed that the option-rom is no
> longer visible with the 2K aligned scan. I.e. he needed to make the
> following changes to the mdadm probe_roms() routine:
Option ROMs should be 2K aligned. Is your data structure part of a ROM or
an actual ROM header ?
> Is this safe? Should the kernel be updated as well? I am assuming that
> you were the one that originally introduced the 2K aligned scan with
> this commit from the historical git:
Actually I don't think that was me, don't remember it anyway.
The man to bug at the moment on ROM magic is probably H Peter Anvin
however.
--
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