From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Grant Grundler Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 19:54:24 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH] 2.6 SGI Altix I/O code reorganization Message-Id: <20041006195424.GF25773@cup.hp.com> List-Id: References: <41641007.5020702@sgi.com> <20041006185739.GA25773@cup.hp.com> <41644301.9EC028B3@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <41644301.9EC028B3@sgi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Colin Ngam Cc: Grant Grundler , Patrick Gefre , "Luck, Tony" , Matthew Wilcox , Jesse Barnes , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org Colin, thanks for ACKing the feedback. I think there is still some confusion... On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 02:09:54PM -0500, Colin Ngam wrote: ... > > Mathew explained replacing the raw_pci_ops pointer is the Right Thing > > and I suspect it's easier to properly implement. > > I believe we did just that. We did not touch pci_root_ops. Correct. The patch ignores/overides pci_root_ops with sn_pci_root_ops (which is what I originally suggested). Mathew's point was only raw_pci_ops needs to point at a different set of struct pci_raw_ops (see include/linux/pci.h). > > I realize that's not easy to add/maintain in the arch/ia64 port though > > since pcibios_fixup_bus() is common code for multiple platforms. > > Yes, would anybody allow us to make a platform specific callout > from within generic pcibios_fixup_bus()??? If it can be avoided, preferably not. But that's up to Jesse/Tony I think. ... > > It means we are telling PCI subsystem to walk root busses that don't > > exist in all configurations. I hope there are no nasty side effects > > from that. > > Not at all. If you look at the loop, sn_pci_fixup_bus(0 gets called for 0 - > PCI_BUSES_TO_SCAN but if the bus does not exist, Can you quote the bit of the patch which implements "if the bus does not exist" check? I can't find it. > One favour. Would you agree to letting this patch be included by Tony > and we will come up with another patch to fix the 2 obvious items listed > above? It will be great to avoid spinning this big patch. I think that's up to Jesse/Tony. I don't "own" any of the code in question. Just trying to undo the confusion I caused. grant