On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 10:42:34PM -0600, Alex Chiang wrote: > * Matthew Wilcox <matthew@xxxxxx>: > > On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 01:29:16AM +0200, Pierre Ossman wrote: > > > On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 17:08:27 -0600 > > > Alex Chiang <achiang@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > Sorry for one more round-trip, but could you turn on debugging > > > > for pciehp as well? > > > > > > > > > > Same thing, with debugging: > > > > I have a laptop with a similar problem (though I don't have pciehp > > enabled, so I didn't notice it). Obviously, we need to fix this. > > > > There is no question in my mind that firmware has programmed the slot > > numbers incorrectly. Here's the evidence from lspci -vvv: > > > > 00:1c.0 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation 82801H (ICH8 Family) PCI Express Port 1 (rev 03) > > Capabilities: [40] Express (v1) Root Port (Slot+), MSI 00 > > SltCap: AttnBtn- PwrCtrl- MRL- AttnInd- PwrInd- HotPlug+ Surpise+ > > Slot # 2, PowerLimit 6.500000; Interlock- NoCompl- > > 00:1c.4 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation 82801H (ICH8 Family) PCI Express Port 5 (rev 03) > > Capabilities: [40] Express (v1) Root Port (Slot+), MSI 00 > > SltCap: AttnBtn- PwrCtrl- MRL- AttnInd- PwrInd- HotPlug+ Surpise+ > > Slot # 2, PowerLimit 6.500000; Interlock- NoCompl- > > > > I don't think anyone can credibly argue that this is correct. They're > > both PCIe devices, they're both both indicating that they have a slot > > (maybe if I get my screwdriver out, I can see if there's really a slot > > ...), they're on the same bus (so I don't know how the with_bus > > parameter makes any difference). > > > > I've always hated that with_bus parameter. I don't like it being a > > parameter and I don't like the names it produces. > > > > Part of the problem is the kobject API. It really hates you trying to > > register a duplicate name and won't just return -EEXIST and let you try > > a new name. Instead it prints an ugly warning and dumps stack. See > > kobject_add_internal() in lib/kobject.c. > > Yeah, I don't really like that part of the kobject API either. Then don't register kobjects with the same name of an already existing one :) It's pretty simple, you already have a list of all kobjects associated with this parent kobject (or driver or class), so search them all before registering them if you think you might end up with a duplicate. thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
