On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 09:23:21 -0700 Ram Pai <linuxram@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 09:57:00AM +0200, Dominik Brodowski wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 03:47:17PM -0700, Ram Pai wrote: > > > Allocate resources to cardbus bridge only after all other genuine > > > resources requests are satisfied. Dont retry if resource allocation > > > for cardbus-bridge fails. > > > > Well, for those who use cardbus cards, cardbus resources aren't "nice to > > have", they are absolutely required. Of course, not all cardbus cards need > > as many resources as are currently assigned, so I wouldn't oppose a patch > > which marks _some_ of the currently assigned resources as "nice to have". > > But this approach -- 0 required, all "nice to have" -- seems wrong to me. > > Do you know how much minimal resource is good enough? The value, before > this patch, was 256 for IO ports and 64M for memory. > > BTW: If the BIOS has already assigned enough resources for all the devices on > the system, no devices will be starved including the cardbus. The OS intervenes > and is forced to make this hard choice only when it sees unassigned resources to > some devices along with resource contention. Dominik, presumably you have a few good cardbus test machines; can you give Ram's patches a try? If we know they break existing configurations, I'm afraid we'll just have to revert the whole re-allocation patch yet again. If your stuff survives, I'll ping Linus to see what he thinks, though he'll probably want to revert in any case... Thanks, -- Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
