On Monday 18 February 2008 11:31:07 pm Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > On Mon, 2008-02-18 at 21:39 -0700, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > powerpc: has a different collision check at (5) > > I've always found the collision check dodgy. I tend to want to keep > the way powerpc does it here. > > pci_enable_device() should only enable resources that have successfully > been added to the resource tree (that have passed all the collision > check etc...). There is a simple & clear indication of that: res->parent > is non-NULL. I think that is a better check than the test x86 does on > start and end. > > That is, whatever the arch code decides to use to decide whether > resources are assigned by firmware or by the first pass assignment code > or not and collide or not, once that phase is finished (which is the > case when calling pcibios_enable_device(), having the resource in the > resource-tree or not is, I believe, the proper way to test whether it's > a useable resource. So should x86 adopt that collision check? I don't hear anything about actual architecture differences that are behind this implementation difference. Bjorn - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-parisc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
