On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 06:11:58PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote: >> Meelis reported strange conflicts on sparc v210: >> pci 0001:00:07.0: can't claim BAR 2 [mem 0x7ff00000000-0x7ff000fffff]: address conflict with 0001:00:07.0 [mem 0x7ff00000000-0x7ff000fffff] >> pci 0001:00:06.0: can't claim BAR 0 [io 0x7fe01000000-0x7fe0100000f]: address conflict with 0001:00:07.0 [io 0x7fe01000000-0x7fe0100ffff] >> pci 0001:00:0d.0: can't claim BAR 0 [io 0x7fe01000900-0x7fe01000907]: address conflict with 0001:00:07.0 [io 0x7fe01000000-0x7fe0100ffff] >> pci 0001:00:0d.0: can't claim BAR 1 [io 0x7fe01000918-0x7fe0100091f]: address conflict with 0001:00:07.0 [io 0x7fe01000000-0x7fe0100ffff] >> pci 0001:00:0d.0: can't claim BAR 2 [io 0x7fe01000910-0x7fe01000917]: address conflict with 0001:00:07.0 [io 0x7fe01000000-0x7fe0100ffff] >> pci 0001:00:0d.0: can't claim BAR 3 [io 0x7fe01000908-0x7fe0100090f]: address conflict with 0001:00:07.0 [io 0x7fe01000000-0x7fe0100ffff] >> pci 0001:00:0d.0: can't claim BAR 4 [io 0x7fe01000920-0x7fe0100092f]: address conflict with 0001:00:07.0 [io 0x7fe01000000-0x7fe0100ffff] >> PCI: /pci@1e,600000 can't claim Video RAM area [mem 0x7ff000a0000-0x7ff000bffff]: address conflict with 0001:00:07.0 [mem 0x7ff00000000-0x7ff000fffff] >> PCI: /pci@1e,600000 can't claim System ROM [mem 0x7ff000f0000-0x7ff000fffff]: address conflict with 0001:00:07.0 [mem 0x7ff00000000-0x7ff000fffff] >> PCI: /pci@1e,600000 can't claim Video ROM [mem 0x7ff000c0000-0x7ff000c7fff]: address conflict with 0001:00:07.0 [mem 0x7ff00000000-0x7ff000fffff] >> >> we have >> pci_bus 0001:00: root bus resource [io 0x7fe01000000-0x7fe01ffffff] (bus address [0x0000-0xffffff]) >> pci_bus 0001:00: root bus resource [mem 0x7ff00000000-0x7ffffffffff] (bus address [0x00000000-0xffffffff]) >> >> so pci bus address in the bars for 0001:00:07.0 has all 0s. >> >> 0001:00:07.0 ISA bridge: ULi Electronics Inc. M1533/M1535/M1543 PCI to ISA Bridge [Aladdin IV/V/V+] >> Region 0: [virtual] I/O ports at 0000 [size=64K] >> Region 1: Memory at <unassigned> (32-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=1M] >> Region 2: Memory at <unassigned> (32-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=1M] >> 00: b9 10 33 15 0f 00 10 02 00 00 01 06 00 00 00 00 >> 10: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 >> 20: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 >> 30: 00 00 00 00 a0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 >> >> According to http://www.versalogic.com/Support/Downloads/pdf/ali1543.pdf >> page 28: The indices before 40h are read-only. >> and we have all 0 from 0x10-0x2f, according to lspci. >> So those BAR do not work as regular BAR, just clean flags, and ignore them all >> the way include claim and sizing and alloc etc. > > A BAR that is read-only zeroes is perfectly legal (PCI spec r3.0, sec > 6.2.5.1) and __pci_read_base() handles it correctly. > > Maybe you're using something other than __pci_read_base() and the problem > is there? > > The following dmesg logs show the [10b9:1533] device handled > correctly, with no implemented BARs: > > https://bugs.freedesktop.org/attachment.cgi?id=118855 > http://d11mgdpsdcgrvc.cloudfront.net/dmesg.txt > http://www.hivmr.com/db/sasj1xfk98zsz9amfmpp1mdkzfk3pjk3 ok, then those resource info should come from OF instead of __pci_read_base(). will drop this patch. Thanks 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
