[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4BEDD14A.1030400@sgi.com>
Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 15:40:10 -0700
From: Mike Travis <travis@....com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
CC: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@...com>,
Mike Habeck <habeck@....com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, x86@...nel.org,
Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...el.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Yinghai <yinghai.lu@...cle.com>,
"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
Myron Stowe <myron.stowe@...com>
Subject: Re: [Patch 1/1] x86 pci: Add option to not assign BAR's if not already
assigned
H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 05/14/2010 03:34 PM, Mike Travis wrote:
>> It seems that BIOS changes are much more difficult. The real solution
>> to this problem is for Card Vendors to not request I/O Bars if they
>> won't be using them. But that's the hardest option of all to accomplish.
>>
>
> That is a non-option. Any device which may have to be a boot or console
> device in a legacy system pretty much needs them.
>
> -hpa
Yes, that's true. We're somewhat fortunate in that our Legacy I/O
devices are confined to those on the first blade, and all of these
other devices are on other blades (PCI segments 1+).
But you're right, unless the card vendor supplied some kind of strapping
option, or something similar, it won't know it's in a UV system or not.
Thanks,
Mike
--
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