[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130626150407.GB14117@kroah.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 08:04:07 -0700
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>, john.ronciak@...el.com,
miles.j.penner@...el.com, bruce.w.allan@...el.com,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] x86/PCI: quirk Thunderbolt PCI-to-PCI bridges
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 03:17:57PM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 02:15:56PM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> > On Tue, 25 Jun 2013 19:22:10 +0300
> > Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > > + if (!(pci_probe & PCI_NOASSIGN_ROMS)) {
> > > + pr_info("Thunderbolt host router detected disabling ROMs\n");
> > > + pci_probe |= PCI_NOASSIGN_ROMS;
> > > + }
> >
> > I wonder if this should just be the default on x86? Or do we allocate
> > ROM space to address some other platform where we need it and the BIOS
> > doesn't do it for the devices we care about?
>
> Good question. In our case it definitely helps to have pci=norom the
> default. Can't tell if it might break something that depends on the current
> behaviour.
>
> Bjorn, Greg, Rafael,
>
> What do you think?
I can't recall any specific reason to not do this, so no objection from
me, but make it a nice and small patch that can easily be reverted if
problems show up in the wild :)
thanks,
greg k-h
--
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