On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 12:50:12 -0800 (PST) Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > > On Wed, 27 Jan 2010, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > > > Without intel_bus.c, we essentially assume config 1 all the time. > > If we keep intel_bus.c and this patch for .33, things should work > > for configs 1 and 4. Adding support for config 4 is good. > > Quite frankly, is there any major downside to just disabling/removing > intel_bus.c for 2.6.33? If we're not planning on having it in the long run > anyway - or even if we are, but we can't be really happy about the state > of it as it would be in 2.6.33, not using it at all seems to be the > smaller headache. > > The machines that it helps are also the machines where you can fix things > up with 'use_csr', no? And they are pretty rare, and they didn't use to > work without that use_csr in 2.6.32 either, so it's not even a regression. > > Am I missing something? No that's the plan. intel_bus.c was a good effort, but it's just too different from what Windows does, and it'll always be behind. We'll disable it for 2.6.33 and try again to move to _CRS in 2.6.34 (but fixing the problem with large numbers of _CRS resources this time). -- Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-testers" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
