[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1435098868.3996.11.camel@kernel.crashing.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 08:34:28 +1000
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
Cc: Suravee Suthikulpanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Liviu Dudau <liviu.dudau@....com>,
Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
linux-arm <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 3/4] arm64: Do not call enable PCI resources when specify
PCI_PROBE_ONLY
On Mon, 2014-09-29 at 12:17 -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> This seems like more than necessary, but I don't know all the history.
> In particular, I don't know why PCI_PROBE_ONLY should make a
> difference to things like claiming resources.
It shouldn't ... we created that option on ppc originally to avoid
allocation/reallocation of resources. If they are bad, leave them bad,
but it was never a question of disabling all these other things.
(Ok, the MRSS/MPS is debatable, but why not plumb the parent pointers
and why not claim ? That doesn't make sense to me).
Cheers,
Ben.
--
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