[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <43F901BD926A4E43B106BF17856F0755EA8EEA18@orsmsx508.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 11:19:45 -0700
From: "Pan, Jacob jun" <jacob.jun.pan@...el.com>
To: Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
CC: Robert Hancock <hancockrwd@...il.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org" <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: RE: Regression: 2.6.34 boot fails on E5405 system, bisected:
de08e2c26
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ben Greear [mailto:greearb@...delatech.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 10:07 AM
>To: Pan, Jacob jun
>Cc: Robert Hancock; linux-kernel; jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org
>Subject: Re: Regression: 2.6.34 boot fails on E5405 system, bisected:
>de08e2c26
>
>On 07/14/2010 08:36 AM, Pan, Jacob jun wrote:
>> what is the config size of 10.1?
>> ls -l /sys/bus/pci/devices/0000:00:10.1/config
>>
>> if that is 256, it might be related to this patch.
>
>That patch is already in 2.6.34.y (with slight white-space
>change it seems: space before <).
>
>I just posted a patch to lkml that fixes the problem for me,
>based on a suggestion by Robert Hancock.
>
>I think this or something similar should to go 2.6.34.y stable
>as well.
>
I have not seen the patch yet, but there is no guarantee that
capabilities are always laid out in ascending address. So I think
we cannot bail out when
pcie_cap >> 20 <= pos
If that is some bug in the config space, can we fix it with some quirks?
Thanks,
Jacob
--
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