On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 14:27:56 -0600 Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@xxxxxx> wrote: > I'm a little concerned that those patches are a sledgehammer approach. > Previously, IORESOURCE_BUSY has basically been used for mutual exclusion > between drivers that would otherwise claim the same resource. It hasn't > been used to guide resource assignment in the PCI/PNP/etc core. Maybe > it's a good idea to also use IORESOURCE_BUSY there, but I'm not sure. > Right now it feels like undesirable overloading to me. I guess that's true, removing those regions from the pool entirely might be better? Or some other, clear way of expressing that the regions aren't available to drivers. Maybe we need a new IO resource type for platform ranges. > I think it also leads to at least one problem: Guenter's machine has no > VGA but has a PCI device that lives at 0xa0000. The driver for that > device won't be able to request that region if the arch code has marked > it busy. Ah good point, so we'll want another approach at any rate. Yinghai? -- 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
