On Saturday, December 6, 2008 10:00 am Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Sat, 6 Dec 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > So, to fix the issue at hand, I'd like the $subject patch to go first. > > Then, there is a major update of the new framework waiting for .29 in the > > Greg's tree (that's the main reason why nobody uses it so far, BTW) and > > I'd really prefer it to go next. After it's been merged, I'm going to > > add the mandatory suspend-resume things (save state and go to a low power > > state on suspend, restore state on resume) to the new framework in a > > separete patch. > > > > Is this plan acceptable? > > Sounds good to me. And assuming Jesse/Greg are all aboard, I'll just wait > for the pull requests from Jesse and Greg. > > The only thing I'll do right now is to send off my "print out ICH6+ > LPC resources" patch again to Jesse, with a changelog etc. It can probably > go in as-is (it really just adds printk's), but since it didn't matter > anyway we migth as well just do it as a PCI thing for 2.6.29 too. Ok, I applied the set (Rafael's 1-2 and your ICH patch) to my linux-next branch. We should get a little build coverage this week at least, hopefully nothing breaks too badly. > On a similar note, I wonder what we should do about the whole "transparent > bridge resource allocation" thing. It also didn't end up really mattering, > even if it apparently made a difference for Frans. The question is just > whether we would be better off with IO windows for transparent buses (the > way we try to set things up now), or with a simpler PCI resource tree that > just takes advantage of the transparency. > > The bridge windows _may_ result in better PCI throughput behind such a > bridge, so there is some argument for keeping them. On the other hand, > transparent bridges aren't generally for high-performance stuff anyway, > and one advantage of the transparency is the flexibility it allows (ie we > don't _need_ to set up the static bridging windows). > > I dunno. I wonder what Windows does. Following Windows in areas like this > tends to have the advantage that it's what the firmware and the hardware > has generally been tested with most. At the same time, I'm not sure this > is necessarily a very bug-prone area for either firmware or hardware. If > there's actual bridge bugs wrt the windows, I suspect such a bridge would > be broken enough to be unusable regardless. Just so happens that I'm working with some people internally on transparent bridge related issues atm, I'll see what I can dig up. -- Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
