mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Yinghai Lu" <yhlu.kernel@gmail.com>
To: "Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	"Bjorn Helgaas" <bjorn.helgaas@hp.com>
Cc: "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@elte.hu>,
	"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	"Jesse Barnes" <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: split e820 reserved entries record to late
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:19:30 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <86802c440808281319i2f727274g505e43a2f6f6cdeb@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.1.10.0808281255200.3300@nehalem.linux-foundation.org>

On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 1:05 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 28 Aug 2008, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>
>> so could let BAR res register at first, or even pnp?
>
> Well, I'm not sure whether PnP or e820 should be first, as long as any
> "real hardware" probing takes precedence over either. I _suspect_ that
> e820 is more trustworthy, which implies that PnP should probably be added
> last. It would be good to have some idea what Windows does, since usually
> all the firmware bugs are essentially hidden by whatever that other OS
> happens to do.
>
> The basic rule really should be: "What do we trust most?" and probe things
> in that order.
>
> So e820 is fairly trustworthy, but we know that it will have various
> random things marked as reserved because they are special in some way (but
> we don't know _how_ they are special - they may well be real BAR's that
> just have a fixed meaning to ACPI or whatever).
>
> But we obviously trust _part_ of it (the RAM stuff) more than we trust
> other parts. So it does make sense to consider that separately.
>
> PnP I personally wouldn't trust at all, except as a way to keep dynamic
> resources away from those things, which is why I'd put it last. But that's
> just my personal gut feeling.
>
> Hardware we generally trust more than any firmware, but even hardware can
> have bugs. And some classes of hardware tends to be less buggy than others
> (ie I'd trust some on-die APIC base pointer before I would trust a Cardbus
> controller BAR, for example).

ok, will move e820_reserve_resource_late to pcibios_resource_survey(),
so it is called vi pci_subsys_init before pnp_system_init

YH

  reply	other threads:[~2008-08-28 20:19 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-08-28 19:39 Yinghai Lu
2008-08-28 20:05 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-08-28 20:19   ` Yinghai Lu [this message]
2008-08-28 20:29   ` H. Peter Anvin
2008-08-28 20:38     ` Linus Torvalds
2008-08-28 20:45       ` H. Peter Anvin

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=86802c440808281319i2f727274g505e43a2f6f6cdeb@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=yhlu.kernel@gmail.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=bjorn.helgaas@hp.com \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®