On 12/27/2007 1:58 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > There was a thread called "PCI vendor id == 1 regression?" (Kai Ruhnau was > the main reporter for that one). But looking back, it seems that one > didn't hit the kernel mailing list, so I guess google cannot pick it up. I > can forward all the emails if you want, but quite frankly, you don't > really want to. It boils down to: > > Stephen Hemminger: > "There have been two reports with different hardware of the PCI vendor > id of 0001 showing up. I got a report on sky2, and Francois saw similar > problem on r8169. > In one case, it happened only with 2.6.23 kernel, the correct id was > returned by older kernels. > > This is a heads up, there may be a PCI problem. Or just > some users smoking strange fall leaves." > > And then one of the reporters: > > "Good kernel: > > 02:00.0 Ethernet controller: Marvell Technology Group Ltd. 88E8056 PCI-E > Gigabit Ethernet Controller (rev 12) > 00: ab 11 64 43 07 00 10 00 12 00 00 02 01 00 00 00 > > Bad kernel: > > 02:00.0 Ethernet controller: Unknown device 0001:4364 (rev 12) > 00: 01 00 64 43 07 00 10 00 12 00 00 02 01 00 00 00" >
The root pcie port implementation is obviously buggy. But did we confirm whether that hardware bug might be partly related to "configuration-retry-status" pcie-root handling as introduced/described in: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=110541914926842&w=2 Does the 0001 vendor-id still shows up if pci_enable_crs() has never been called? Does anybody knows what was the original rational to call pci_enable_crs() by default? Loic -- 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/
