On Wednesday 27 January 2010 01:50:12 pm Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Wed, 27 Jan 2010, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > > > Without intel_bus.c, we essentially assume config 1 all the time. > > If we keep intel_bus.c and this patch for .33, things should work > > for configs 1 and 4. Adding support for config 4 is good. > > Quite frankly, is there any major downside to just disabling/removing > intel_bus.c for 2.6.33? If we're not planning on having it in the long run > anyway - or even if we are, but we can't be really happy about the state > of it as it would be in 2.6.33, not using it at all seems to be the > smaller headache. > > The machines that it helps are also the machines where you can fix things > up with 'use_csr', no? And they are pretty rare, and they didn't use to > work without that use_csr in 2.6.32 either, so it's not even a regression. > > Am I missing something? Only that when we added intel_bus.c, Yinghai reported that the reason was because a machine had a broken _CRS, so "pci=use_crs" wouldn't help. At the time, Windows hadn't been brought up on that box. My speculation is that by now, they've done that bringup and probably fixed the _CRS issue, so it might work now. If that's the case, we could drop intel_bus.c from .33 and just use "pci=use_crs" on those boxes until we can figure out how to turn it on automatically. Bjorn -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-testers" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
