From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S935107AbYEIBso (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 May 2008 21:48:44 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752538AbYEIBsf (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 May 2008 21:48:35 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:56745 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751880AbYEIBse (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 May 2008 21:48:34 -0400 Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 18:46:37 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds To: Jesse Barnes cc: Dave Airlie , kernel list , Gary Hade , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: regression fixed by using pci=rom In-Reply-To: <200805081717.54102.jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org> Message-ID: References: <21d7e9970805081654h6de38d58q5ad3b6d3520b45f1@mail.gmail.com> <200805081717.54102.jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org> User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (LFD 962 2008-03-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 8 May 2008, Jesse Barnes wrote: > > Hm, yeah in many cases we definitely *do* want to try to get the expansion ROM > space allocated. But maybe it should be a lower priority than other BARs... > Gary? The thing is, a lot of these things have been done this way because not doing them that way breaks. We want to allocate expansion ROM space - even if we don't enable it - because not doing so will screw up bus sizing etc, and can make it impossible to allocate later. In general, changing PCI allocation strategy is really _really_ dangerous, even when it is "right", because it tends to expose a lot of issues where something worked just because it was perhaps indirectly causing a layout that worked. So the reason I immediately reverted this is that it was simply totally wrong. If somebody cares about multi-node systems, the onus of making those work should be on *that*, not on old systems that already work. Ingo, Thomas: I would _seriously_ suggest that you don't consider the x86 PCI setup code to be "x86" code. Because it isn't. Not in that sense. Just don't take patches to it. Linus