[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100426145352.01575798@virtuousgeek.org>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 14:53:52 -0700
From: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: "Bjorn Helgaas" <bjorn.helgaas@...com>,
"Andy Isaacson" <adi@...apodia.org>,
"R. Andrew Bailey" <bailey@...mai.com>,
"Yinghai" <yinghai.lu@...cle.com>,
"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...hat.com>, guenter.roeck@...csson.com,
"Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Thomas Renninger" <trenn@...e.de>, yaneti@...lera.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/PCI: never allocate PCI MMIO resources below
BIOS_END
On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 14:44:50 -0700
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
> >
> > Agreed. The trickier part is handling any platform devices that
> > request_resource against that space. But maybe we don't need to do
> > anything special; just making sure we avoid it in the PCI "BIOS" code
> > as Bjorn did may be sufficient.
> >
>
> Why is that hard? If a platform device does a request_resource against
> that space, it's a request for specific address space and it should be
> granted.
I was thinking if we made it a special resource type we'd have to
change any platform drivers to use it; i.e. it wouldn't be
IORESOURCE_MEM or IORESOURCE_IO but IORESOURCE_DRAGONS. That way it
wouldn't be part of the normal resource space.
But that's definitely overkill. I think Bjorn's fix is sufficient.
--
Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center
--
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