From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Liviu.Dudau@arm.com (Liviu Dudau)
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 16:08:23 +0100
Subject: [PATCH v8 6/9] pci: Introduce a domain number for pci_host_bridge.
In-Reply-To: <20140711141115.GB16321@arm.com>
References: <1404240214-9804-1-git-send-email-Liviu.Dudau@arm.com>
 <1404240214-9804-7-git-send-email-Liviu.Dudau@arm.com>
 <20140708005954.GC22939@google.com>
 <20140708104655.GC6501@e106497-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
 <CAErSpo75ovmGoeSHKJN0nckGDy-0gpn8kLPfHQ79CtcXxhPydw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20140708224847.GC4980@e106497-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
 <CAErSpo5rBt0iF2HGeDD-UH6_sPCoC647VCw0Q1v_0Rdpvcir-w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20140710094758.GA6501@e106497-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
 <CAErSpo5ZNCY31NztT0cLFbRVsBZqMsZ0LbTFNOTQCZUU3F7qJA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20140711141115.GB16321@arm.com>
Message-ID: <20140711150823.GU6501@e106497-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 03:11:16PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 11:36:10PM +0100, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > Most of the rest of the v7 discussion was about "Introduce a domain
> > number for pci_host_bridge."  I think we should add arm64 using the
> > existing pci_scan_root_bus() and keep the domain number in the arm64
> > sysdata structure like every other arch does.  Isn't that feasible?
> > We can worry about domain unification later.
> 
> I think that's what we were trying to avoid, adding an arm64-specific
> pci_sys_data structure (and arm64-specific API). IIUC, avoiding this
> would allow the host controller drivers to use the sysdata pointer for
> their own private data structures.
> 
> Also since you can specify the domain number via DT (and in Liviu's
> v8 patches read by of_create_pci_host_bridge), I think it would make
> sense to have it stored in some generic data structures (e.g.
> pci_host_bridge) rather than in an arm64 private sysdata.
> 
> (Liviu is thinking of an alternative API but maybe he could briefly
> describe it here before posting a new series)
> 
> -- 
> Catalin


My plan is to keep the domain number in the pci_host_bridge and split
the creation of the pci_host_bridge out of the pci_create_root_bus().
The new function (tentatively called pci_create_new_root_bus()) will
no longer call pci_alloc_host_bridge() but will accept it as a
parameter, allowing one to be able to set the domain_nr ahead of the
root bus creation.

Best regards,
Liviu

-- 
====================
| I would like to |
| fix the world,  |
| but they're not |
| giving me the   |
 \ source code!  /
  ---------------
    ?\_(?)_/?