From: lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com (Lorenzo Pieralisi)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [RFC/RFT PATCH 2/2] ARM64: kernel: pci: implement PCI device resources claiming
Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 18:48:17 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150520174817.GA10750@red-moon> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAErSpo4OY+mm4R34_1DG5tb+tTJVGQbjuQ75esSF26LUzNWL9A@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 02:02:52PM +0100, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
[...]
> >> @@ -48,6 +48,11 @@ int pcibios_add_device(struct pci_dev *dev)
> >>
> >> dev->irq = of_irq_parse_and_map_pci(dev, 0, 0);
> >>
> >> + if (pci_has_flag(PCI_PROBE_ONLY) &&
> >
> > Does it really matter if PCI_PROBE_ONLY is set ?
> >
> >> + !pci_is_root_bus(dev->bus) &&
> >
> > This check is useless, since pci_read_bridge_bases checks that already.
> >
> >> + !pci_bridge_bases_is_read(dev->bus))
> >> + pci_read_bridge_bases(dev->bus);
> >> +
> >
> > Ok. Most of the archs do that in pcibios_fixup_bus, I would like to
> > understand:
> >
> > 1) Should we do it on PCI_PROBE_ONLY only
> > 2) Can we move this to generic code - ie pci_scan_child_bus (I guess answer
> > is no, because there are corner cases I am not aware of)
>
> In my opinion, we should call pci_read_bridge_bases() in all cases,
> regardless of PCI_PROBE_ONLY. pci_read_bridge_bases() doesn't
> *change* anything in the hardware; it only reads what's there. (It
> should attempt writes to learn whether I/O and prefetchable memory
> apertures are implemented, but those should be done as in
> pci_bridge_check_ranges(), where the original value is restored.)
>
> I also think this should be done in generic code, since there's
> nothing architecture-specific about bridge operation.
>
> I've been hoping to get rid of pcibios_fixup_bus() completely for
> years, and doing pci_read_bridge_bases() in generic code would be a
> big step.
I put together a patch to move it to pci_scan_child_bus, and to
remove it from almost all archs pcibios_fixup_bus implementations,
let's see how it goes.
> No doubt there are corner cases we'll trip over, but I'm not aware of them yet.
>
Let's find out :), posting tomorrow.
Thanks,
Lorenzo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-05-20 17:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-05-14 14:42 [RFC/RFT PATCH 1/2] ARM: kernel: bios32: implement PCI device resources claiming Lorenzo Pieralisi
2015-05-14 14:42 ` [RFC/RFT PATCH 2/2] ARM64: kernel: pci: " Lorenzo Pieralisi
2015-05-15 2:09 ` Suravee Suthikulanit
2015-05-18 17:38 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2015-05-18 19:44 ` Suravee Suthikulanit
2015-05-20 8:56 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2015-05-20 13:02 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2015-05-20 17:48 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi [this message]
2015-05-19 23:25 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2015-05-20 9:16 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20150520174817.GA10750@red-moon \
--to=lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).