On 01/27/2010 08:26 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Wed, 2010-01-27 at 15:34 -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote: >> On 01/27/2010 01:03 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: >>> 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. >> >> BIOS fixed that problem already. but >> 1. how to turn that pci=use_crs for that box automatically ? >> how about our other kind of boxes? > > Yes, we need a way to turn on "pci=use_crs" automatically. My first > thought is to turn it on for all BIOSes with dates of 2010 or later, and > in addition, have a whitelist of the pre-2010 machines that require it. > >> 2. how about when apci is disabled? > > When ACPI is disabled, I think we just have to accept that we lose some > functionality. I don't see the need for alternate ways to accomplish > everything that ACPI does. It's becoming less and less useful to > disable ACPI; I think it's only interesting as a debugging tool, and > even then it's a sledgehammer. some systems when acpi is enabled could have interrupt storm. and have to disable acpi. YH -- 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
