"Guilherme G. Piccoli" <gpicc...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes: > On 08/08/2016 09:32 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote: >> "Guilherme G. Piccoli" <gpicc...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes: >>> >>> (i) What is the specific issue? Do you have some logs or at least a >>> "high-level" description of the problem in Xorg? I took a look in its >>> code and PCI domain is coded as u16, which is correct/expected. So it >>> seems a subtle bug we should investigate and hopefully fix. >> >> It was reported here: >> >> https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/2016-August/147062.html >> >> It seems xorg just has a hard coded limit of 256 domains. > > Thanks for the link Michael. I guess Xorg _had_ this limit in the > "past", since the function that was logged on error - xf86MapLegacyIO() > - was removed by a commit of 2014: > > https://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel/2014-July/043224.html
Aha, nice work. In fact it seems to be better than that, the array of domains was removed in 2011 in: https://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/xserver/commit/?id=858fbbb40d7c69540cd1fb5315cebf811c6e7b3f Which is officially ancient history as far as I'm concerned. >>> (ii) Why is it related to the absence of pseries check?! You said this >>> was your bad, but as far as I understand, Xorg runs in pSeries too so >>> the issue should also be there heheh >> >> Well yes I guess it would, if anyone had tested Xorg on pseries :) > > We use to test Xorg on pSeries regularly; in fact, I made a quick test > today: > > http://imgur.com/a/l1lP8 > > I forced the domain to be 0xffff as in the above image, and everything > worked fine. Awesome. >> I think for now I'm going to apply this, and we'll work out something >> else later. > > OK, I guess your solution is fine and solves the pasemi issue quickly, No given the above info on xorg I'll drop this, and merge just the endian fix. cheers
