[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1723076.byQgAGE2K7@vostro.rjw.lan>
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2012 13:47:22 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
Cc: "linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Jiang Liu <liuj97@...il.com>,
Myron Stowe <myron.stowe@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [Alternative][PATCH] ACPI / PCI: Set root bridge ACPI handle in advance
On Wednesday, December 26, 2012 04:10:32 PM Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 26, 2012 12:41:05 PM Yinghai Lu wrote:
> >> On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 12:16 PM, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org> wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com> wrote:
> >> >> Do you have a reference for this? I think this might have been true
> >> >> in the past, but I don't think it's true for any version of gcc we
> >> >> support for building Linux.
> >> >
> >> > http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0804.3/3600.html
> >>
> >> the problem is already addressed by:
> >>
> >> | commit f9d14250071eda9972e4c9cea745a11185952114
> >> | Author: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
> >> | Date: Fri Jan 2 09:29:43 2009 -0800
> >> |
> >> | Disallow gcc versions 4.1.{0,1}
> >> |
> >> | These compiler versions are known to miscompile __weak functions and
> >> | thus generate kernels that don't necessarily work correctly. If a weak
> >> | function is int he same compilation unit as a caller, gcc may end up
> >> | inlining it, and thus binding the weak function too early.
> >> |
> >> | See
> >> |
> >> | http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27781
> >> |
> >> | for details.
> >>
> >> so it is ok to put the __weak in the same file now.
> >
> > Cool, thanks for checking and for the ACK!
>
> wait, we have some problem on systems that root bus is not exported via DSDT ...
>
> one of my nehalem system that have uncore cpu devices are not exported via ACPI.
>
> also there will be problem that system is booting with acpi=off.
>
>
> +int pcibios_root_bridge_prepare(struct pci_host_bridge *bridge)
> +{
> + struct pci_sysdata *sd = bridge->bus->sysdata;
> + struct pci_root_info *info = container_of(sd, struct pci_root_info, sd);
> +
> + ACPI_HANDLE_SET(&bridge->dev, info->bridge->handle);
> + return 0;
> +}
>
> will get wrong info...via sd... as their sd is standalone
Yes, it will be called in all code paths leading to acpi_create_root_bus(),
not only the ones started by pci_acpi_scan_root(). Well, too bad.
By the way, that illustrates nicely why I generally have concerns about __weak
stuff and similar tricks.
Bjorn, I had tried to use the approach you suggested, but it didn't work.
I thought about fixing that, but everything I could come up with turned out to
be too complicated, so I'm inclined to use the previous version after all:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/1889221/
that has been acked by Yinghai, Greg and Peter already.
Thanks,
Rafael
--
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, 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