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. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
