lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Nov]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] pci, add FW_BUG warning to pci= kernel option
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 8:59 PM, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com> wrote:
> [+cc lkml, linux-arch, Linus]
>
> On Sat, Nov 01, 2014 at 02:11:19PM -0400, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
>> The kernel should boot PCI without the use of kernel parameters. Display
>> a FW_BUG warning when pci= is used.
>>
>> Cc: Myron Stowe <mstowe@redhat.com>
>> Cc: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org
>> Signed-off-by: Prarit Bhargava <prarit@redhat.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/pci/pci.c | 2 ++
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/pci.c b/drivers/pci/pci.c
>> index 625a4ac..5172060b 100644
>> --- a/drivers/pci/pci.c
>> +++ b/drivers/pci/pci.c
>> @@ -4515,6 +4515,8 @@ static int __init pci_setup(char *str)
>> }
>> str = k;
>> }
>> + add_taint(TAINT_FIRMWARE_WORKAROUND, LOCKDEP_STILL_OK);
>> + pr_crit(FW_BUG "The PCI configuration has been overridden thorugh the use of pci=. Please report the issue you are attempting to resolve to your hardware vendor.\n");
>
> My goal is to be able to boot without any "pci=" parameters, so from that
> perspective, I like this.
>
> When people have a problem booting Linux, they often try a variety of
> things like "pci=assign-busses", "pci=nocrs", "pci=nomsi", "pci=nommconf",
> "pci=noacpi", etc. If they find something that works, there's a tendency
> to treat that as a "solution." I'd rather that they report it, so we can
> try to fix the bug or add a quirk so the *next* person won't have to figure
> out the right parameters to use.
>
> My worry is that there are a few things where Linux isn't smart enough to
> do the right thing automatically, and I don't think we'll have a good
> solution in the near future. For example:
>
> pci=norom
> pci=pcie_bus_perf,pcie_bus_safe,etc.
> pci=cbiosize=...
> pci=cbmemsize=...
> pci=resource_alignment=...
> pci=hpiosize=...
> pci=hpmemsize=...
> pci=realloc
>
> I don't like the fact that these options exist, but I suspect there are
> users that do depend on them and might find this warning too aggressive.
>
> So I'm interested in opinions on whether this is a good idea at all and
> whether we should exclude some options from the warning/tainting.

Hi Prarit,

We didn't get any nibbles :)

I don't think we can realistically taint the kernel for *all* "pci="
options. So if you want to pursue this, maybe you could enhance this
so we can have a whitelist of options that we will support without
tainting. Then we can argue about what should be on the list and go
from there. Does that seem reasonable?

This is a somewhat more aggressive use of tainting than we've had in
the past, so we might have to iterate on this a bit.

Bjorn


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-11-18 01:21    [W:0.070 / U:0.136 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site