Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Mon, 22 Jun 2015 01:55:55 +0800 | From | Jiang Liu <> | Subject | Re: ACPI regression? Was Re: Ethernet chip disappeared from lspci |
| |
On 2015/6/22 1:25, Jiang Liu wrote: [...] >>>> - Memory behind bridge: 80000000-801fffff >>>> - Prefetchable memory behind bridge: 0000000080200000-00000000803fffff >>>> + Memory behind bridge: ff000000-ff1fffff >>>> + Prefetchable memory behind bridge: 00000000ff200000-00000000ff3fffff >>>> >>>> Can't this cause a problem? E.g. programming the bridge with an address range >>>> that the bridge doesn't actually support? >>> This worked in v3.18.16, but not in v4.0.5 or v4.1.0-rc8. You >>> attached a v4.1.0-rc8 dmesg log earlier. Would you mind collecting a >>> v3.18.16 dmesg log, so we can compare them? >> >> I collected all 3 for you to compare them, compressed, attached. >> >> BTW, I browsed git log and found 2ea3d266bab3b497238113b20136f7c3f69ad9c0 >> as suspicious. I will try the 4.0/4.1 kernels with this one reverted. >> >>> >>> These (from the v4.1.0-rc8 dmesg) look wrong, but I'll have to look at >>> the code to see what might be going on: >>> >>> acpi PNP0A08:00: host bridge window expanded to [mem >>> 0x00000000-0xffffffff window]; [mem 0x00000000-0xffffffff window] >>> ignored >>> pci 0000:00:1c.1: can't claim BAR 15 [mem 0xfdf00000-0xfdffffff >>> 64bit pref]: address conflict with PCI Bus 0000:00 [mem >>> 0xf0000000-0xfed8ffff window] >>> >>> Bjorn > Hi Bjorn and Boszormenyi, > From the 3.18 kernel, we got a message: > [ 0.126248] acpi PNP0A08:00: host bridge window > [0x400000000-0xfffffffff] (ignored, not CPU addressable) > And from 4.1.-rc8, we got another message: > [ 0.127051] acpi PNP0A08:00: host bridge window expanded to [mem > 0x00000000-0xffffffff window]; [mem 0x00000000-0xffffffff window] ignored > > That smells like a 32bit overflow or 64bit cut-off issue. Hi Bjorn and Boszormenyi, With v3.18.6, it uses u64 to compare resource ranges. We changed to use resource_size_t with recent changes, and resource_size_t may be u32 or u64 depending on configuration. So resource range [0x400000000-0xfffffffff] may have been cut-off as [0x00000000-0xffffffff], thus cause the trouble.
Hi Boszormenyi, Could you please help to try following test patch? against v4.1-rc8? Thanks! Gerry ------------------------------------------------------------------- diff --git a/drivers/acpi/resource.c b/drivers/acpi/resource.c index 8244f013f210..d7b8c392c420 100644 --- a/drivers/acpi/resource.c +++ b/drivers/acpi/resource.c @@ -206,6 +206,11 @@ static bool acpi_decode_space(struct resource_win *win,
res->start = attr->minimum; res->end = attr->maximum; + if (res->start != attr->minimum || res->end != attr->maximum) { + pr_warn("resource window ([%#llx-%#llx] ignored, not CPU addressable)\n", + attr->minimum, attr->maximum); + return false; + }
/* * For bridges that translate addresses across the bridge, ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |