>On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 08:18:19 -0700, Heasley, Seth wrote: >> >On Thursday, August 28, 2008 12:49 am Jean Delvare wrote: >> >> Hi Seth, >> >> >> >> On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 16:58:26 -0700, Seth Heasley wrote: >> >> > This patch updates the Intel Ibex Peak (PCH) LPC and SMBus >Controller >> >> > DeviceIDs. >> >> > >> >> > Signed-off-by: Seth Heasley <seth.heasley@xxxxxxxxx> >> >> > >> >> > --- linux-2.6/include/linux/pci_ids.h.orig 2008-08-27 >> >11:54:07.000000000 >> >> > -0700 +++ linux-2.6/include/linux/pci_ids.h 2008-08-27 >> >12:01:53.000000000 >> >> > -0700 @@ -2428,9 +2428,39 @@ >> >> > #define PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_ICH10_3 0x3a1a >> >> > #define PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_ICH10_4 0x3a30 >> >> > #define PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_ICH10_5 0x3a60 >> >> > -#define PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_PCH_0 0x3b10 >> >> > -#define PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_PCH_1 0x3b11 >> >> > -#define PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_PCH_2 0x3b30 >> >> > +#define PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_PCH_0 0x3b00 >> >> > +#define PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_PCH_1 0x3b01 >> >> > +#define PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_PCH_2 0x3b02 >> >> >> >> Changing device ID definitions that way is really bad practice. It >> >> needs to be synchronized between all involved subsystems. >> >> >> >> > --- linux-2.6/arch/x86/pci/irq.c.orig 2008-08-27 >> >11:53:13.000000000 -0700 >> >> > +++ linux-2.6/arch/x86/pci/irq.c 2008-08-27 12:07:21.000000000 - >0700 >> >> > @@ -592,6 +592,36 @@ >> >> > case PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_ICH10_3: >> >> > case PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_PCH_0: >> >> > case PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_PCH_1: >> >> > + case PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_PCH_2: >> >> > + case PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_PCH_3: >> >> > + case PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_PCH_4: >> >> > + case PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_PCH_5: >> >> > + case PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_PCH_6: >> >> > + case PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_PCH_7: >> >> > + case PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_PCH_8: >> >> > + case PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_PCH_9: >> >> > + case PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_PCH_10: >> >> > + case PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_PCH_11: >> >> > + case PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_PCH_12: >> >> > + case PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_PCH_13: >> >> > + case PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_PCH_14: >> >> > + case PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_PCH_15: >> >> > + case PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_PCH_16: >> >> > + case PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_PCH_17: >> >> > + case PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_PCH_18: >> >> > + case PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_PCH_19: >> >> > + case PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_PCH_20: >> >> > + case PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_PCH_21: >> >> > + case PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_PCH_22: >> >> > + case PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_PCH_23: >> >> > + case PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_PCH_24: >> >> > + case PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_PCH_25: >> >> > + case PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_PCH_26: >> >> > + case PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_PCH_27: >> >> > + case PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_PCH_28: >> >> > + case PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_PCH_29: >> >> > + case PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_PCH_30: >> >> > + case PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_PCH_31: >> >> >> >> I am no PCI IRQ routing expert, but I have to admit that I a bit >> >> skeptical that all the PCH functions are IRQ routers. You're adding as >> >> many entries here for the PCH than there have been for all Intel chips >> >> in the past 10 years or so... >> >> >> >> > r->name = "PIIX/ICH"; >> >> > r->get = pirq_piix_get; >> >> > r->set = pirq_piix_set; >> > >> >Yeah, this has me confused now too. I remember specifically asking if >the >> >other PCHs needed to be added to this list when the last patch was >applied.. >> >What happened? Can you give us some more background here, Seth? The >> >changelog should definitely include an explanation of why the IDs need >to >> >be >> >changed (i.e. why the old commit was wrong). >> > >> >Thanks, >> >-- >> >Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center >> >> I'm not sure what's "messy," given that I changed what was required >> to be changed, then added the new IDs. These IDs are as follows: >> >> LPC Controller: 3b00-3b1f (final ID set in Firmware, but 32 >possibilities) >> SMBus: 3b30 >> >> In terms of the irq stuff, I'm adding only the LPC Controller IDs >> there. There are just a lot of them. Normally we have a handful of >> IDs, but in this case the list is longer. > >So basically, you (Intel) have no clue what IDs will be used, and >instead of waiting until you have the information, you prefer to add a >bunch of device IDs to the Linux kernel, most of which will never >exist? This is making the kernel code bigger and slower. Not by much, >but still... That's bad engineering, really. Especially if you don't >clean up afterwards, as happens to be the case for the ICH10. I >compared the ICH10 datasheet with the IDs we have in the kernel and >only 3 of the 6 defined device IDs are actually used by existing ICH10 >chips. I can't speak to the engineering, although I agree that blocking out 32 IDs is strange. I don't believe it's a matter of not knowing what will be used but rather that the firmware has the flexibility to change the ID in that range. On the ICH10 side, we don't have a datasheet released yet for one of the skus of the product (the other sku has not launched). The other three IDs are from that sku. No cleanup will be needed. > >> I suppose what "messy" means is, I should have kept the existing >> defines and only added the new? I can resubmit if that's the way >> it should be done. > >That's one part of the messiness, yes. Which underlines how bad the >symbol naming scheme is to start with. > I have no history here, but I'm inclined to agree it's a strange naming scheme. -Seth -- 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
