[PATCH v8 6/9] pci: Introduce a domain number for pci_host_bridge.

Liviu Dudau
2014-07-08T22:48:47Z

On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 07:41:50PM +0100, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 4:46 AM, Liviu Dudau <Liviu.Dudau@arm.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 01:59:54AM +0100, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>
> >> I wonder if it would help to make a weak pci_domain_nr() function that
> >> returns "bridge->domain_nr". Then each arch could individually drop its
> >> pci_domain_nr() definition as it was converted, e.g., something like this:
> >>
> >> - Convert every arch pci_domain_nr() from a #define to a non-inline
> >> function
> >> - Add bridge.domain_nr, initialized from pci_domain_nr()
> >> - Add a weak generic pci_domain_nr() that returns bridge.domain_nr
> >> - Add a way to create a host bridge in a specified domain, so we can
> >> initialize bridge.domain_nr without using pci_domain_nr()
> >> - Convert each arch to use the new creation mechanism and drop its
> >> pci_domain_nr() implementation
> >
> > I will try to propose a patch implementing this.
>
> I think this is more of an extra credit, cleanup sort of thing. I
> don't think it advances your primary goal of (I think) getting arm64
> PCI support in. So my advice is to not worry about unifying domain
> handling until later.

Getting arm64 supported *is* my main goal. But like you have stated in your
review of v7, you wanted to see another architecture converted as a guarantee
of "genericity" (for lack of a better word) for my patches. The one architecture
I've set my eyes on is microblaze, and that one uses pci_scan_root_bus()
rather than pci_create_root_bus() so I don't have any opportunity to pass the
domain number or any additional info (like the sysdata pointer that we were
talking about) to the pci_host_bridge structure unless I do this cleanup.

Best regards,
Liviu

>
> Bjorn
>

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