Hey, On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 02:36:22PM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote: > 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... Actually, I only have one cardbus-capable test machine, which does work in very most cases, and also I do care much more about the PCMCIA side of things than the PCI/CardBus side... Therefore, all I could do is some more or less informed guessing about how much minimal resource we should try to allocate... Best, Dominik -- 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
