Re: [PATCH] Intel Alder IOAPIC fix

[James Bottomley]

On Fri, 2004-01-16 at 00:32, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Yes, this is the extreme case.  In normal cases I would just
> expect to push to one side and probably shrink it to 0.  I guess
> I have something against implying a hierarchal relationship that
> does not exist.

Well, it makes sense to me that the resource would be a child of the
reserved area, because the reserved area covers the APICs and this
rather annoying PCI device has one of the IO APICs tied to BAR0.

In this case, we have a PCI device claiming something we already
discovered and made use of long ago in bootup.

> Right.  To me it looks like separate cases.  What I keep envisioning
> scanning the PCI devices and then realizing they are behind
> a bridge.  Before I go to far I guess I should ask.
> 
> The splitting/pushing aside looks especially useful for those
> cases where you subdivide the resource again.
> 
> As for the bridge case I think that is something different.  

The pragmatist in me says we can handle them all as a single case. 
Simply put, it means insert_resource() says "I know this belongs in the
resource tree, just put it in where it should go, please".  As long as
we make sure we only use it for the exception cases, it should all work
fine.

All I really want is to get the alter 4 and 8 way boxes working again,
I'm happy to go with whatever people decide about resources.  What other
uses are there for the TENTATIVE regions?

James


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/