From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: wangyijing@huawei.com (Yijing Wang)
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 18:56:26 +0800
Subject: [PATCH 08/28] PCI: Introduce pci_host_assign_domain_nr() to assign
 domain
In-Reply-To: <2124926.gSbG0l1jIy@wuerfel>
References: <1421372666-12288-1-git-send-email-wangyijing@huawei.com>
 <3026954.09KG7UaUTi@wuerfel> <54BC6894.6060500@huawei.com>
 <2124926.gSbG0l1jIy@wuerfel>
Message-ID: <54BCE2DA.1000405@huawei.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On 2015/1/19 17:50, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Monday 19 January 2015 10:14:44 Yijing Wang wrote:
>>>> I'm confused: the same code is already part of the PCI tree, but with
>>>> Lorenzo Pieralisi listed as the patch author. The code is good,
>>>> and I acked it in the past, but one of you is (probably by accident)
>>>> misattributing the patch.
>>>>
>>>> Assuming that the patch that is already merged in next is the right
>>>> one, I think you should rebase your series on top of
>>>>
>>>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/helgaas/pci.git#next
>>>>
>>>> to avoid conflicts like this one.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think I just got confused because the code duplicates most of
>>> pci_bus_assign_domain_nr(). Maybe this can be done in a better way
>>> by splitting the existing function into 
>>>
>>> static int pci_assign_domain_nr(struct device *)
>>> {
>>>       ... /* most of pci_bus_assign_domain_nr */
>>>
>>>       return domain;
>>> }
>>>
>>> void pci_host_assign_domain_nr(struct pci_host_bridge *host)
>>> {
>>>       host->domain = pci_assign_domain_nr(host->dev.parent);
>>> }
>>>
>>> void pci_bus_assign_domain_nr(struct pci_bus *bus, struct device *parent)
>>> {
>>>       bus->domain_nr = pci_assign_domain_nr(parent);
>>> }
>>>
>>
>> Hi Arnd,
>>    I kept the almost duplicated pci_host_assign_domain_nr() and
>> pci_bus_assign_domain_nr() here for building happy, because now
>> platform specific pci_domain_nr() still exists which may get domain
>> number from pci_bus. pci_bus_assign_domain_nr() will be removed in
>> the last patch.
>>
> 
> I'm not sure I get your point: the approach I showed above seems to have
> the same effect, except it doesn't duplicate code temporarily, which
> makes it less error-prone in case your patch gets merged at the
> same time as another patch that modifies pci_bus_assign_domain_nr.

OK, I got it, will update it, thanks!


Thanks!
Yijing.

> 
> 	Arnd
> 
> .
> 


-- 
Thanks!
Yijing