On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 5:36 AM, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> I'm not opposed to something like this, if people think it's useful. >> >> This patch sets the node quite early, before we even look at the _PXM >> information in pci_acpi_scan_root(). That means if the BIOS does >> supply a _PXM method and the user gives this argument, the >> user-supplied info is silently overwritten. To me it would make more >> sense to handle an option like this *after* we look for _PXM info. >> That way it could be used to compensate for both missing and incorrect >> _PXM info. > > yes, we can only let user input and hostbridge touch that array. > > but i'd like to only handle missing _PXM case. > > If the BIOS provide wrong _PXM, that BIOS really should be fixed at first. I don't understand this. Is there an *advantage* to silently throwing away the information the user specified on the command line? If the user goes to the trouble of discovering and using a command line argument, I think that user-supplied information should override anything the kernel can figure out on its own. Ulrich, do you have an opinion either way? -- 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
