Re: [RFC PATCH v5 0/8] introduce PCI bus notifier chain to get rid of the ACPI PCI subdriver interfaces

[Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@huawei.com>]

On 2013-1-29 8:34, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, January 28, 2013 01:56:33 PM Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 9:07 AM, Jiang Liu <liuj97@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> This is an RFC patchset to address review comments in thread at:
>>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/1946851/. The patch just pasts
>>> compilation. If no objection to the new implementation, I will
>>> go on to modify acpiphp driver and conduct tests.
>>>
>>> The main changes from V4 to V5 includes:
>>> 1) introduce a dedicated notifier chain for PCI buses
>>> 2) change pci_slot as built-in driver
>>> 3) unify the way to create/destroy PCI slots
>>> 4) introduce a kernel option to disable PCIe native hotplug
>>>
>>> TODO:
>>> 1) change acpiphp as built-in and unify the way to create/destroy ACPI
>>>    based hotplug slots.
>>> 2) change other ACPI PCI subdriver in Yinghai's root bridge hotplug series
>>>    to use the PCI bus notifier chain.
>>> 3) Remove the ACPI PCI subdriver interface eventaully.
>>>
>>> Jiang Liu (8):
>>>   PCI: make PCI device create/destroy logic symmetric
>>>   PCI: split registration of PCI bus devices into two stages
>>>   PCI: add a blocking notifier chain for PCI bus addition/removal
>>>   ACPI, PCI: avoid building pci_slot as module
>>>   PCI, ACPI: hook PCI bus notifications to create/destroy PCI slots
>>>   pci_slot: replace printk(KERN_xxx) with pr_xxx()
>>>   PCI/PCIe: add "pci=nopciehp" to disable PCIe native hotplug
>>>   PCI/PCIe: only claim PME from firmware when CONFIG_PCIE_PME is
>>>     enabled
>>>
>>>  Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt |    2 +
>>>  drivers/acpi/Kconfig                |    5 +-
>>>  drivers/acpi/internal.h             |    5 +
>>>  drivers/acpi/pci_root.c             |    8 +-
>>>  drivers/acpi/pci_slot.c             |  217 ++++++++++-------------------------
>>>  drivers/acpi/scan.c                 |    1 +
>>>  drivers/pci/bus.c                   |   26 ++++-
>>>  drivers/pci/pci.c                   |    2 +
>>>  drivers/pci/pci.h                   |    1 +
>>>  drivers/pci/pcie/portdrv_core.c     |    7 +-
>>>  drivers/pci/pcie/portdrv_pci.c      |    3 +
>>>  drivers/pci/probe.c                 |    7 +-
>>>  drivers/pci/remove.c                |   15 +--
>>>  include/linux/pci.h                 |   21 ++++
>>>  14 files changed, 142 insertions(+), 178 deletions(-)
>>
>> I think the problem we're trying to solve is that we don't initialize
>> hot-added devices, correctly, e.g., we don't set up AER, we don't
>> update acpi/pci_slot stuff, we probably don't set up PME etc.  We also
>> have similar issues like IOMMU init on powerpc.
>>
>> Notifier chains seem like an unnecessarily complicated way to deal
>> with this.  They're great for communicating between modules that stay
>> at arm's length from each other.  But that's not the case here --
>> everything is PCI and is quite closely coupled.  I think AER, PME,
>> slot, etc., should  be initialized directly in pci_device_add() or
>> somewhere nearby.
> 
> I agree.
> 
>> This might sound a bit radical because it implies some fairly
>> far-reaching changes.  It means this code can't be a module (the only
>> one that can be built as a module today is pciehp, and I think
>> everybody agrees that we should make it static as soon as we can
>> figure out the acpiphp/pciehp issue).  I think it also means the
>> pcieportdrv concept is of dubious value, since all the services should
>> be known at build-time and we probably don't need a registration
>> interface for them.
> 
> It is of dubious value regardless.  It just adds complexity for no gain.
> Moreover, these things are in fact not mutually independent.
> 
> I've had a lot of headaches trying to work around that when I was working
> on PME support and later on _OSC for root bridges.  Let's just take that
> stuff away once and for good. :-)
Hi Bjorn and Rafael,
	Thanks for advice. We will go this direction to change those modules
as built-in.
Regards!
Gerry

> 
> Thanks,
> Rafael
> 
>