On Mon, 2006-12-04 at 14:22 +0000, Alan wrote: > The discussion I was having was about sl82cxx and handling unassigned > resources. The zero address isn't relevant to that. Well, actually, it's unclear to me wether the resource is unassigned or has been assigned to 0 :-) And in the later case, why claim'ing it fails. Olaf, can you give me a dump of /proc/ioports ? What is sitting at 0 on that PCI bus ? I have the "gut" feeling that the firmware didn't assign it, but it does explicitely has an assigned-address property for it with value "0" and a valid size & set of flags... so it looks like maybe it -really- did assign it to 0. Either that or it's buggy. In any case, if we have to do a fixup here, it would be a pSeries specific fixup and thus would have to sit in a PCI quirk in the pSeries platform code. > > 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. Besides, it does make thing easier in the kernel to consider IRQ 0 as invalid. That's one of the reasons for which I generalized the IRQ remapping layer in arch/powerpc. Among others, 0 is always invalid and 1...15 are always only ever assigned to a legacy 8259 if any, anything else gets remapped. > 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. There is an UNSET flag isn't there ? Though nobody uses it ... Ben. - 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
