[PATCH v7 4/6] pci: Introduce a domain number for pci_host_bridge.

Liviu Dudau
2014-07-04T14:57:52Z

On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 11:44:51PM +0100, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 4:07 AM, Liviu Dudau <Liviu.Dudau@arm.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 10:14:18AM +0100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> >> On Mon, 2014-04-07 at 09:46 +0100, Liviu Dudau wrote:
> >> >
> >> > *My* strategy is to get rid of pci_domain_nr(). I don't see why we need
> >> > to have arch specific way of providing the number, specially after looking
> >> > at the existing implementations that return a value from a variable that
> >> > is never touched or incremented. My guess is that pci_domain_nr() was
> >> > created to work around the fact that there was no domain_nr maintainance in
> >> > the generic code.
> >>
> >> Well, there was no generic host bridge structure. There is one now, it should
> >> go there.
> >
> > Exactly! Hence my patch. After it gets accepted I will go through architectures
> > and remove their version of pci_domain_nr().
>
> Currently the arch has to supply pci_domain_nr() because that's the
> only way for the generic code to learn the domain. After you add
> pci_create_root_bus_in_domain(), the arch can supply the domain that
> way, and we won't need the arch-specific pci_domain_nr(). Right?
> That makes more sense to me; thanks for the explanation.
>
> Let me try to explain my concern about the
> pci_create_root_bus_in_domain() interface. We currently have these
> interfaces:
>
> pci_scan_root_bus()
> pci_scan_bus()
> pci_scan_bus_parented()
> pci_create_root_bus()
>
> pci_scan_root_bus() is a higher-level interface than
> pci_create_root_bus(), so I'm trying to migrate toward it because it
> lets us remove a little code from the arch, e.g., pci_scan_child_bus()
> and pci_bus_add_devices().
>
> I think we can only remove the arch-specific pci_domain_nr() if that
> arch uses pci_create_root_bus_in_domain(). When we convert an arch
> from using scan_bus interfaces to using
> pci_create_root_bus_in_domain(), we will have to move the rest of the
> scan_bus code (pci_scan_child_bus(), pci_bus_add_devices()) back into
> the arch code.
>
> One alternative is to add an _in_domain() variant of each of these
> interfaces, but that doesn't seem very convenient either. My idea of
> passing in a structure would also require adding variants, so there's
> not really an advantage there, but I am thinking of the next
> unification effort, e.g., for NUMA node info. I don't really want to
> have to change all the _in_domain() interfaces to also take yet
> another parameter for the node number.

Bjorn,

I'm coming around to your way of thinking and I want to suggest a strategy
for adding the domain number into the PCI framework.

My understanding is that when pci_host_bridge structure was introduced
you were trying to keep the APIs unchanged and hence the creation of a
bridge was hidden inside the pci_create_root_bus() function.

If we want to store the domain_nr information in the host bridge structure,
together with a pointer to sysdata, then we need to break up the creation
of the pci_host_bridge from the creation of a root bus. At that moment,
pci_scan_root_bus() will need to be changed to accept a pci_host_bridge
pointer, while pci_scan_bus() and pci_scan_bus_parented() will create
the host bridge in the body of their function.

Did I understood correctly this time your intentions? Do you agree with
this plan?

Best regards,
Liviu

>
> Bjorn
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in
> the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>

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