On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 16:54:08 -0700 (PDT) Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, Jesse Barnes wrote: > > > > Yeah, I think it's reasonable to revert, especially given how we do > > _CRS handling currently. I'm hoping at some point we can use the > > _CRS data to at least augment the configuration we get from > > hardware, since on some machines it seems to be necessary. > > Agreed. I do think we should take _CRS into account - possibly just > as a minimal hint to determine which root buses to try to scan (maybe > we do this already, I really didn't check). Or maybe we could use it > to extend on our scan information. > > But when it seems to have things like "this bus can forward VGA > cycles" kind of "resources" (which seems to be the main reason Larry > Finger has so many of them), then that's just worthless knowledge > that we're much better off just determining on our own. Yeah, some of those bits don't seem useful; but OTOH if a given bridge decodes a certain range in a non-configurable way how else will we get that info w/o having huge tables of per-chip info? Those are the sorts of things I worry about with our current resource handling. Maybe not directly _CRS related, but still... > Anyway, I may feel pretty strongly about things like this, but I'm > also open to being convinced otherwise for 2.6.32. I wanted to do > -rc1 today (it's been more than two weeks), and while I don't expect > -rc1 to be flawless, I also hate to release it with _known_ bugs. Sure, we'll keep at it and see if we can get something better in place for .32. > So partly due to timing, I'd rather revert it, and we can revisit it > for the next release - whatever the actual end result then will be. > > [ There's a difference between "we're supposed to find and fix bugs > in the -rc series", and "I release known-buggy -rc1's since we're > supposed to fix it later". For similar reasons, I hate pulling > known-buggy stuff during the merge window - it's ok if it shows > itself to be buggy _later_, but if people send me stuff that they > know is buggy as they send it to me, then that's a problem. ] Yeah, 100% agreed. I didn't hear any reports until after people started using your tree, so I think this case was handled correctly: push something that *seems* ok upstream, but with eyes wide open for the possibility we'd need to revert. Thanks, -- Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center -- 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
