From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1031636AbWLAATI (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Nov 2006 19:19:08 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1031642AbWLAATI (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Nov 2006 19:19:08 -0500 Received: from dspnet.fr.eu.org ([213.186.44.138]:39441 "EHLO dspnet.fr.eu.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1031636AbWLAATE (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Nov 2006 19:19:04 -0500 Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 01:19:01 +0100 From: Olivier Galibert To: Andi Kleen , linux-pci@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz, "Hack inc." , Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI MMConfig: Detect and support the E7520 and the 945G/GZ/P/PL Message-ID: <20061201001901.GA11057@dspnet.fr.eu.org> Mail-Followup-To: Olivier Galibert , Andi Kleen , linux-pci@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz, "Hack inc." , Linus Torvalds References: <20061123195137.GA35120@dspnet.fr.eu.org> <200611252159.59414.ak@suse.de> <20061126131532.GA41703@dspnet.fr.eu.org> <200611262028.04638.ak@suse.de> <20061127190301.GA75765@dspnet.fr.eu.org> <20061127190748.GA7015@bingen.suse.de> <20061127202406.GA90483@dspnet.fr.eu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20061127202406.GA90483@dspnet.fr.eu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 09:24:06PM +0100, Olivier Galibert wrote: > On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 08:07:48PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: > > Is that with just the code movement patch or your feature patch > > added too? If the later can you test it with only code movement > > (and compare against vanilla kernel). at least code movement > > only should behave exactly the same as unpatched kernel. > > You misread. Unpatched kernel does not work. That's why I gave the > git reference of the kernel too. Patched kernel does not work either, > unsurprisingly (bios gives correct tables on that box). Ok, I'm trying to debug it, and it's a pain. It's a timing issue, mmcfg write accesses are too slow for something. The get_base_addr() call is enough to slow things down too much, which explains why the fundamentally simpler x86-64 code works without a hitch. Finding out what it is too slow for, though, is an interesting proposition. It's not entirely obvious it is actually related to the sata accesses. OG.