|To:||Thomas Bogendoerfer <email@example.com>|
|Subject:||Re: [PATCH] Register PCI host bridge resource earlier|
|From:||Sergei Shtylyov <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||Sun, 08 Apr 2007 20:58:42 +0400|
|Organization:||MontaVista Software Inc.|
|References:||<20070408112844.GA7553@alpha.franken.de> <4618DDF0.email@example.com> <20070408131228.GA7819@alpha.franken.de> <4618ED95.firstname.lastname@example.org> <20070408135244.GA8016@alpha.franken.de> <4619008D.email@example.com> <20070408161027.GA8265@alpha.franken.de>|
|User-agent:||Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040803|
Hello. Thomas Bogendoerfer wrote:
I'm just not seeing how using insert_resource() vs request_resource() for i8259 ports can be relevant here.
request_resource will fail, because the range is already taken bysni_io_resource, while insert_region inserts the resource into sni_io_resource.
No, it shouldn't according to what I'm seeing in the code. Perhaps I'm missing something and need to actually try executing alike code a see...
The problem is that init_i8259 doesn't have the right resource for doing the request_resource, if ioport_resource starting from 0x0000 is already taken by a PCI host bridge.
I'm not at all sure that giving out I/O addresses from 0 to PCI is a great idea -- is it indeed necessary?
I could probably write a patch, which adds a parameter to init_i8259 for the resource, where the request_resource is correct. No idea, whether this is worth the efford.
Did you mean options, opinions, or something else? :-)
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: [PATCH] Register PCI host bridge resource earlier, Thomas Bogendoerfer|
|Next by Date:||Re: [PATCH] Change PCI host bridge setup/resources, Sergei Shtylyov|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: [PATCH] Register PCI host bridge resource earlier, Thomas Bogendoerfer|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [PATCH] Register PCI host bridge resource earlier, Thomas Bogendoerfer|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|