Hello. Alan wrote:
Both PCI core and IDE interpret a zero length resource as unassigned.
This is not about 0-length resource, this is about 0-address. Look at ide_hwif_confiure() in drivers/ide/setup-pci.c...
The discussion I was having was about sl82cxx and handling unassigned resources. The zero address isn't relevant to that.
You were following up to the particular error message emitted by the IDE core (which you've now deleted), so I corrected you on its reason, that's all.
You should know that the IRQ assumption is *not* true even for x86 since IRQ0 is and has always been a perfectly valid IRQ (used by PIT).
Please see previous million recyclings of that discussion and Linus answer.
When Linus remaps IRQ0 on x86, I'll follow that code as a testament. Until this happens, I consider is just an opinion. Forcing every arch but x86 to remap IRQ0 is an example of the double standards.
Stick a real IDE resource at zero
> and drivers/ide can't cope.
Yeah, I've noticed. Unfortunately, a lot of PPC platforms (at least) are doing exactly this...
The checks need pushing upwards and removing from their current place - the pci layer should check the resource length, the isa pnp should I believe check for zero address etc.
So, it's OK to remove the base *address* check in ide_hwif_confiure() altogether?
libata makes a similar assumption in ata_resources_present() as someone (GregKH ???) needs to define what the proper way to encode "resource not allocated" into the PCI resources should be.
If someone on the PCI list (cc'd) or Greg can give a definitive answer then we can go fix the offenders now.
Well, I thought that was IORESOURCE_UNSET...
Alan
WBR, Sergei - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
