From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750986AbWDXRQp (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Apr 2006 13:16:45 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750988AbWDXRQp (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Apr 2006 13:16:45 -0400 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:21146 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750978AbWDXRQo (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Apr 2006 13:16:44 -0400 Subject: Re: PCI ROM resource allocation issue with 2.6.17-rc2 From: Arjan van de Ven To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Dave Airlie , Andrew Morton , Matthew Reppert , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Antonino A. Daplas" , Benjamin Herrenschmidt In-Reply-To: References: <1145851361.3375.20.camel@minerva> <20060423222122.498a3dd2.akpm@osdl.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 19:16:33 +0200 Message-Id: <1145898993.3116.50.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3 (2.2.3-2.fc4) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by pentafluge.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2006-04-24 at 10:07 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Mon, 24 Apr 2006, Dave Airlie wrote: > > > > however not doing pci_enable_device causes interrupts to not work on the cards > > in a lot of circumstances.. > > Well, you could use "pci_enable_device_bars(0)" instead. > > That will set up interrupt routing _without_ enabling any BAR's, however, > that's probably crazy too, since that means that if an interrupt happens, > you're really really screwed and can't do anything about it. So that's > probably even more broken than what you do now. > > How about delaying the "pci_enable_device()" until when you actually need > it, ie do it in drm_irq_install() instead? > > Of course, I wonder how you could POST the device without having the BAR's > enabled, you haven't spent enough time reading the X pci code then ;) (or rather, you've done the same thing but hey who's counting) X does all that *itself* based on what X thinks is best. Yes that's silly and X should be taken out and shot for that. What's worse, this is the kind of thing that is really hard to work around in a away that isn't going to make having a fixed X work as well... you can't not enable it for old X and enable it for not-insane X at the same time ;)