On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wednesday, June 05, 2013 12:44:27 AM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> On Friday, May 31, 2013 12:21:30 PM Jiang Liu wrote: >> > From: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@xxxxxxxxxx> >> > >> > When sriov is enabled, VF could just start after PF in pci tree. >> > like c1:00.0 will be PF, and c1:00.1 and after will be VF. >> > >> > acpi do have dev with same ADR. that will make them get glued >> > wrongly. >> >> How exactly are they glued in that case? >> >> > Skip that if it is virtfn. >> >> That should be a bit more specific as far as I can say. I don't see why a VF >> would not have a valid ACPI device object corresponding to it. Is there any >> particular reason? > > To be precise, I don't quite see why it is impossible or invalid for a VF to > have a corresponding ACPI device object. It may not be the case on this > particular system, but why not in general? at least for ioapic routing GSI, we should not mix VF to use other PF's setting. Yinghai -- 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
