Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:13:03 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: Nathan Whitehorn <nwhitehorn@freebsd.org> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, Marcel Moolenaar <xcllnt@mac.com>, src-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r198431 - head/sys/dev/pci Message-ID: <200910261413.04317.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <4AE5E043.8070804@freebsd.org> References: <200910232253.n9NMr10R074584@svn.freebsd.org> <200910261254.49768.jhb@freebsd.org> <4AE5E043.8070804@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Monday 26 October 2009 1:45:39 pm Nathan Whitehorn wrote: > John Baldwin wrote: > > On Monday 26 October 2009 12:32:48 pm Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > > > >> On Oct 26, 2009, at 5:37 AM, John Baldwin wrote: > >> > >> > >>>> Log: > >>>> BIOSes, buggy or otherwise, are i386 or amd64 specific. > >>>> Have the early USB takeover enabled for i386 and amd64 > >>>> by default. > >>>> This also avoids a panic on PowerPC where the resource > >>>> isn't released properly and we find a busy resource > >>>> when the USB host controller wants to allocate it... > >>>> > >> > >>> Presumably such systems won't set the 'BIOS owned' bit in the their > >>> legacy > >>> support registers in which case these routines are NOPs (they just > >>> read the > >>> register, see the bit is clear, and exit). The resource bug sounds > >>> like a > >>> real one that should be fixed and would probably affect any x86 > >>> systems who > >>> have USB disabled in the BIOS, so that should be fixed rather than > >>> papered > >>> over. Please revert. > >>> > >> *sigh* > >> > >> The change was made because 1) doing this as part of the PCI code is > >> unnecessary for non-PC HW, and 2) it's entirely untested on non-PC > >> HW and the gratuitous change can therefore only do harm -- he, guess > >> what, it did do harm. > >> > >> Unless people fix the resource stuff this change cannot be reverted. > >> > >> After the resource fix has gone in, I still object to this being > >> reverted on grounds of gratuitous code bloat. I say this with ARM, > >> MIPS and PowerPC/Book-E in mind. > >> > > > > You didn't remove anything, you merely toggled the setting of a variable. > > Code bloat is a non-argument in that case. Could you care to provide details > > on the resource issue you are encountering? I don't see any obvious resource > > leaks, etc. in the current set of changes. > > > > > The real problem in this case is that the > bus_(deactivate|release)_resource methods are not implemented on several > PCI bus drivers on PowerPC (e.g. uninorth, where this problem arose). Up > until now, I guess it has never mattered. Ahh, ok. I'm fine with having it off for those architectures that can't yet handle it with the hope they will be fixed. -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200910261413.04317.jhb>