On Thu, 13 May 2010 14:02:30 -0600 Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > This issue is not specific to x86, so I don't really like having > > > the implementation be x86-specific. > > > > I agree this isn't a x86 specific issue but given the 'norom' > > cmdline option is basically doing the same thing (but for pci > > Expansion ROM BARs) this code was modeled after it. > > IMHO, we should fix both. Yeah, that would be good. Mike, have you looked at this at all? Also, to clarify, this isn't affecting users today, right? Or do you need all this I/O space for multiple IOHs and the drivers that bind to them in current UV systems? Fundamentally, until we have real dynamic PCI resource management (i.e. driver hooks for handling relocation, lazy allocation of resources at driver bind time, etc.) we're going to continue to need hacks like this. However, we could make them slightly more automated by making "nobar" and "norom" the default on systems that typically need them, maybe with a DMI table. 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
