linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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

  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).