[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201001280909.46043.bjorn.helgaas@hp.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 09:09:44 -0700
From: Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@...com>
To: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
Jeff Garrett <jeff@...rrett.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Kernel Testers List <kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux PCI <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
Myron Stowe <myron.stowe@...com>,
Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [Bug #15124] PCI host bridge windows ignored (works with pci=use_crs)
On Wednesday 27 January 2010 10:53:51 pm Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On 01/27/2010 08:26 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-01-27 at 15:34 -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> >> 2. how about when apci is disabled?
> >
> > When ACPI is disabled, I think we just have to accept that we lose some
> > functionality. I don't see the need for alternate ways to accomplish
> > everything that ACPI does. It's becoming less and less useful to
> > disable ACPI; I think it's only interesting as a debugging tool, and
> > even then it's a sledgehammer.
>
> some systems when acpi is enabled could have interrupt storm.
> and have to disable acpi.
We should fix that problem rather than just covering it up by
disabling ACPI. Can you provide any details?
I think it's crazy to add code to work around Problem B that only
occurs because we disabled ACPI to work around Problem A. We should
just fix Problem A instead.
Bjorn
--
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