On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 2013-09-27 at 14:54 -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt >> <benh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> > Wouldn't it be better to simply have pci_enable_device() always set bus >> > master on a bridge? I don't see any case where it makes sense to have >> > an enabled bridge without the master bit set on it... >> >> Do you mean attached? > > So this patch works and fixes the problem. I think it makes the whole > thing more robust and should be applied. good. > > I still don't know why the bridge doesn't get enabled properly without > it yes, tracking it down (the machine in question takes a LONG time to > reboot :-) ok, please if you are ok attached one instead. It will print some warning about driver skipping pci_set_master, so we can catch more problem with drivers. Thanks Yinghai
Attachment:
pci_set_master_again_v2.patch
Description: Binary data
