On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 16:14:31 -0700 Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@xxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, 2010-01-16 at 01:34 -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote: > > On 01/15/2010 08:59 PM, Alex Chiang wrote: > > > * Yinghai Lu <yinghai@xxxxxxxxxx>: > > >> From: Kenji Kaneshige <kaneshige.kenji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > >> > > >> With this patch, pciehp driver try to clear PCI bridge resources > > >> to parent bridge (root port or switch downstream port) of the > > >> slot > > >> > > >> so we can shrink pci bridge resource for those port > > >> > > >> This feature is enabled when 'pciehp_realloc' option is > > >> specified. > > >> > > >> -v2: make it could be appiled after Yinghai patchset that touch > > >> pci bridge resource also remove poweron check, because > > >> pci_bridge_release_res will check child at first > > > > > > Same comment as my earlier patch. Why not just make this the > > > default behavior, instead of introducing yet another command line > > > parameter for users to guess at? > > > > it will break Eric's setup/ > > I think this is a clue that we don't understand the problem well > enough yet. > > I'm opposed to adding kernel parameters for this sort of thing. It is > unreasonable to expect users to figure out whether they need to use > this parameter or not. > > Special-case switches like this make it much harder to maintain the > code in the future. Agreed. Yinghai, what's wrong in the new reassignment code that causes Eric's setup to break? Can we just fix that instead and enable reallocation by default? -- 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
