[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <10ae4edf-277c-41cf-020a-56406213a3f4@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2021 10:15:13 +0200
From: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
To: Krzysztof Wilczyński <kw@...ux.com>
Cc: "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Myron Stowe <myron.stowe@...hat.com>,
Juha-Pekka Heikkila <juhapekka.heikkila@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Benoit Grégoire <benoitg@...us.ca>,
Hui Wang <hui.wang@...onical.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86/PCI: Ignore E820 reservations for bridge windows
on newer systems
Hi Krzysztof,
On 10/14/21 12:13 AM, Krzysztof Wilczyński wrote:
> Hi Hans,
>
> Thank you for sending the patch over!
>
> [...]
>> [ 0.000000] BIOS-e820: [mem 0x000000004bc50000-0x00000000cfffffff] reserved
>> [ 0.557473] pci_bus 0000:00: root bus resource [mem 0x65400000-0xbfffffff window]
>
> A very small nitpick: we usually remove time/date stamps from kernel ring
> buffer outputs keeping only the relevant message parts left.
Ok, I'll do a v3 fixing this.
>
> [...]
>> Old systems are defined here as BIOS year < 2018, this was chosen to
>> make sure that pci_use_e820 will not be set on the currently affected
>> systems, while at the same time also taking into account that the
>> systems for which the E820 checking was orignally added may have
>
> A tiny typo of "originally" in the sentence above.
And this.
> [...]
>> @@ -232,3 +236,9 @@ static inline void mmio_config_writel(void __iomem *pos, u32 val)
>> # define x86_default_pci_init_irq NULL
>> # define x86_default_pci_fixup_irqs NULL
>> #endif
>> +
>> +#if defined CONFIG_PCI && defined CONFIG_ACPI
>
> I know that Mika already asked about this, and you responded, so I can only
> added: brackets, let's add brackets, most definitely. :)
I've no big preference either way, so I'll move to using
parentheses for the next version.
>
> [...]
>> +/* Consumed in arch/x86/kernel/resource.c */
>> +bool pci_use_e820 = false;
>
> A small nitpick: not sure if this comment is needed as probably most people
> working with this code would use "git grep" and likes to list occurrences
> where the variables is used. But, this is highly subjective, thus there is
> probably nothing to change here.
I put it the comment there because the other use_foo flag directly above
it are all static, so it is there to explain why this one is not static.
At least that was my idea behind the comment :)
>
>> + printk(KERN_INFO "PCI: %s E820 reservations for host bridge windows\n",
>> + pci_use_e820 ? "Honoring" : "Ignoring");
>
> I know you followed the existing style, which is very much appreciated, but
> if and where possible, we should move to newer API/style and replace the
> printk() above with pr_info(). New code should not be adding old style if
> it can be helped (checkpatch.pl would warn about this too). What do yo you
> think?
Yes checkpatch complained about this, still I deliberately ignored that,
as you said I'm following the existing style here. I very much dislike
mixing styles in a single file. If we want to change this for this file
then IMHO the right thing to do would be a follow up patch changing all
the printk-s at once.
Regards,
Hans
Powered by blists - more mailing lists