On Fri, 8 Sep 2000, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> I think we must panic() for an unknown bus that has an I/O APIC interrupt
> routed from that is marked as "conforming to the bus spec" in the MP
> table. Trying to assume any defaults is unsafe and is not any better --
> we may guess them upon the first interested user reports such a problem.
> This should trigger on a small amount of unusual system if any at all.
Note that then we should move the panic to the irq routing part (ie
MPBIOS_trigger() and MPBIOS_polarity friends). Although right now we have
just a printk() there, and I think I'd prefer it that way. Maybe just make
it bigger letters..
> > It looks like the simplest solution is to just make bus number 0 be
> > "unknown", and leave it at that (and start ISA etc from 1). Wouldn't you
> > agree?
> We cannot asume any bus is of any type -- it may be ISA or PCI or
> whatever. Jean-Marc actually reported:
> Bus #0 is PCI
> Bus #1 is PCI
> Bus #18 is XPRESS
> Bus #19 is EISA
No, I meant our internal numbers for the bus: the MP_BUS_ISA etc numberng
scheme. Let's make _that_ numbering scheme say that "0" is just unknown,
and let's initialize unknown buses to zero (right now we initialize the
_first_ unknown bus to -1, but all other unknown buses are 0, which is
really the same thing as MP_BUS_ISA).
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 15 2000 - 21:00:11 EST