Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] PCI: Add support for Enhanced Allocation devices

[Sean O. Stalley]

On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 04:53:20PM -0700, David Daney wrote:
> On 09/29/2015 03:47 PM, Sean O. Stalley wrote:
> [...]
> >>>>diff --git a/drivers/pci/pci.c b/drivers/pci/pci.c
> >>>>index 6a9a111..7c60b16 100644
> >>>>--- a/drivers/pci/pci.c
> >>>>+++ b/drivers/pci/pci.c
> >>>>@@ -2148,6 +2148,284 @@ void pci_pm_init(struct pci_dev *dev)
> >>>>  	}
> >>>>  }
> >>>>
> >>>>+static unsigned long pci_ea_set_flags(struct pci_dev *dev, u8 prop)
> >>>>+{
> >>>>+	unsigned long flags = IORESOURCE_PCI_FIXED | IORESOURCE_SIZEALIGN;
> >>>
> >>>Why did you add the IORESOURCE_SIZEALIGN flag? EA allows for unaligned resources.
> >>
> >>pci_bus_assign_resources() fails causing the devices to be unusable
> >>if resource_alignment() returns zero.  The easiest fix for this was
> >>to specify IORESOURCE_SIZEALIGN.
> >>
> >>An alternative would be to change the code in setup-bus.c so that
> >>for IORESOURCE_PCI_FIXED resources, it didn't barf.
> >
> >I would do this alternative, but with a IORESOURCE_PCI_EA flag.
> >
> 
> I don't think we need IORESOURCE_PCI_EA.  If a resource is tagged as
> IORESOURCE_PCI_FIXED that means that it cannot be changed, we
> shouldn't care why it is fixed (due to an EA capability for
> example).  We just need to gracefully handle IORESOURCE_PCI_FIXED in
> the places where things currently go wrong.
> 
> David Daney
> 

I agree that we need to make sure fixed things stay fixed,
regardless of if they are fixed by EA or something else.

The question is: do we want to allow all fixed resources to be non-aligned, or just EA?

-Sean
--
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/