On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 04:04:03PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> Here's a lockdep clean version of it:
>
> amd_iommu: Handle aliases not backed by devices
>
> Aliases sometimes don't have a struct pci_dev backing them. This breaks
> our attempt to figure out the topology and device quirks tha
Am Wed, 26 Sep 2012 16:04:03 -0600
schrieb Alex Williamson :
> On Wed, 2012-09-26 at 13:50 -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > On Wed, 2012-09-26 at 10:21 -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2012-09-26 at 17:10 +0200, Roedel, Joerg wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 08:35:59AM -0600, Ale
On Wed, 2012-09-26 at 13:50 -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-09-26 at 10:21 -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > On Wed, 2012-09-26 at 17:10 +0200, Roedel, Joerg wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 08:35:59AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > > Hmm, that throws a kink in iommu groups.
On Wed, 2012-09-26 at 10:21 -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-09-26 at 17:10 +0200, Roedel, Joerg wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 08:35:59AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > Hmm, that throws a kink in iommu groups. So perhaps we need to make an
> > > alias interface to iommu group
Am Wed, 26 Sep 2012 17:04:07 +0200
schrieb "Roedel, Joerg" :
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 08:52:01AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > Assuming this works, it may be ok as a 3.7 fix, but if there was
> > actually more than one device behind the alias we'd expose them as
> > separate iommu groups. I
Am Wed, 26 Sep 2012 17:04:07 +0200
schrieb "Roedel, Joerg" :
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 08:52:01AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > Assuming this works, it may be ok as a 3.7 fix, but if there was
> > actually more than one device behind the alias we'd expose them as
> > separate iommu groups. I
On Wed, 2012-09-26 at 17:10 +0200, Roedel, Joerg wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 08:35:59AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > Hmm, that throws a kink in iommu groups. So perhaps we need to make an
> > alias interface to iommu groups. Seems like this could just be an extra
> > parameter to iommu_
On Wed, 2012-09-26 at 17:04 +0200, Roedel, Joerg wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 08:52:01AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > Assuming this works, it may be ok as a 3.7 fix, but if there was
> > actually more than one device behind the alias we'd expose them as
> > separate iommu groups. I don't
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 08:35:59AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> Hmm, that throws a kink in iommu groups. So perhaps we need to make an
> alias interface to iommu groups. Seems like this could just be an extra
> parameter to iommu_group_get and iommu_group_add_device (empty in the
> typical cas
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 08:52:01AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> Assuming this works, it may be ok as a 3.7 fix, but if there was
> actually more than one device behind the alias we'd expose them as
> separate iommu groups. I don't think that's what we want. Maybe it
> should at least get a pr_
On Wed, 2012-09-26 at 16:43 +0200, Roedel, Joerg wrote:
> Florian,
>
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 01:01:54AM +0200, Florian Dazinger wrote:
> > you're right, either "amd_iommu=off" or removing the audio card makes
> > the failure disappear. I will test the new BIOS rev. tomorrow.
>
> Can you please
Florian,
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 01:01:54AM +0200, Florian Dazinger wrote:
> you're right, either "amd_iommu=off" or removing the audio card makes
> the failure disappear. I will test the new BIOS rev. tomorrow.
Can you please test this diff and report if it fixes the problem for
you?
Thanks.
d
On Wed, 2012-09-26 at 15:20 +0200, Roedel, Joerg wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 01:43:46PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > Joerg, any thoughts on a quirk for this? Unfortunately we can't just
> > skip IOMMU groups when an alias is broken because it puts the other
> > IOMMU groups at risk that
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 01:43:46PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> Joerg, any thoughts on a quirk for this? Unfortunately we can't just
> skip IOMMU groups when an alias is broken because it puts the other
> IOMMU groups at risk that might not actually be isolated from this
> device. It looks lik
On Wed, 2012-09-26 at 01:01 +0200, Florian Dazinger wrote:
> Am Tue, 25 Sep 2012 13:43:46 -0600
> schrieb Alex Williamson :
>
> > On Tue, 2012-09-25 at 20:54 +0200, Florian Dazinger wrote:
> > > Am Tue, 25 Sep 2012 12:32:50 -0600
> > > schrieb Alex Williamson :
> > >
> > > > On Mon, 2012-09-24 at
Am Tue, 25 Sep 2012 13:43:46 -0600
schrieb Alex Williamson :
> On Tue, 2012-09-25 at 20:54 +0200, Florian Dazinger wrote:
> > Am Tue, 25 Sep 2012 12:32:50 -0600
> > schrieb Alex Williamson :
> >
> > > On Mon, 2012-09-24 at 21:03 +0200, Florian Dazinger wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > > I think I've foun
On Tue, 2012-09-25 at 20:54 +0200, Florian Dazinger wrote:
> Am Tue, 25 Sep 2012 12:32:50 -0600
> schrieb Alex Williamson :
>
> > On Mon, 2012-09-24 at 21:03 +0200, Florian Dazinger wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > I think I've found a regression, which causes an early boot crash, I
> > > appended the kerne
On Tue, 2012-09-25 at 12:32 -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-09-24 at 21:03 +0200, Florian Dazinger wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I think I've found a regression, which causes an early boot crash, I
> > appended the kernel output via jpg file, since I do not have a serial
> > console or sth.
> >
On Mon, 2012-09-24 at 21:03 +0200, Florian Dazinger wrote:
> Hi,
> I think I've found a regression, which causes an early boot crash, I
> appended the kernel output via jpg file, since I do not have a serial
> console or sth.
>
> after bisection, it boils down to this commit:
>
> 9dcd61303af862c2
19 matches
Mail list logo
