On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 02:43:29PM -0400, Laine Stump wrote:
The function that auto-assigns PCI addresses was written with the
hardcoded assumptions that any PCI bus would have slots available
starting at 1 and ending at 31. This isn't true for many types of
controller (some have a single slot/po
On 07/22/2015 02:50 PM, John Ferlan wrote:
>
> On 07/17/2015 02:43 PM, Laine Stump wrote:
>> The function that auto-assigns PCI addresses was written with the
>> hardcoded assumptions that any PCI bus would have slots available
>> starting at 1 and ending at 31. This isn't true for many types of
>>
On 07/17/2015 02:43 PM, Laine Stump wrote:
> The function that auto-assigns PCI addresses was written with the
> hardcoded assumptions that any PCI bus would have slots available
> starting at 1 and ending at 31. This isn't true for many types of
> controller (some have a single slot/port at 0, s
BTW, in case anyone is hesitant to ACK this patch due to concern of
regressions - aside from my working through it by hand, there are
multiple tests (including for example "pci-bridge-many-disks") which
will fail if the exact same bus/slot is not assigned for many devices,
so I am certain that the
The function that auto-assigns PCI addresses was written with the
hardcoded assumptions that any PCI bus would have slots available
starting at 1 and ending at 31. This isn't true for many types of
controller (some have a single slot/port at 0, some have slots/ports
from 0 to 31). This patch update
