From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by oss.sgi.com (8.11.2/8.11.3) id f9U00Re27689 for linux-mips-outgoing; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 16:00:27 -0800 Received: from ns1.ltc.com (ns1.ltc.com [38.149.17.165]) by oss.sgi.com (8.11.2/8.11.3) with SMTP id f9U00L027686 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 16:00:22 -0800 Received: from prefect (gw1.ltc.com [38.149.17.163]) by ns1.ltc.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 5559E590AC; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 14:57:11 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <066201c160d5$eb51ed40$3501010a@ltc.com> From: "Bradley D. LaRonde" To: "Jun Sun" Cc: , References: <20011026210746.A20395@dev1.ltc.com> <3BDDACD2.7121F905@mvista.com> <04c801c160b0$1d62f660$3501010a@ltc.com> <3BDDDA7A.329F827D@mvista.com> Subject: Re: [Linux-mips-kernel]Re: PATCH: pci_auto bridge support Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 19:00:43 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-linux-mips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jun Sun" To: "Bradley D. LaRonde" Cc: ; Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 5:38 PM Subject: [Linux-mips-kernel]Re: PATCH: pci_auto bridge support > "Bradley D. LaRonde" wrote: > > > > I considered that, but since only this small chuck of run-once surrogate > > bios autoconfig code needs to know, I figured better keep it separate. > > > > I would vote to put it inside the hose structure: > > . It makes a workaround look like a real fix. :-) > > . In other implementations of pci_auto, hose is the private sys data of a pci > dev. Having a bus number inside is very useful (e.g., pci_ops can tell whether > it is type0 of type1 configuration based on the bus number rather than a shaky > NULL parent bus pointer). In the future, all pci_auto should be combined into > the pci driver. So that is probably the right direction to go. > > I think hose may evolve to be the data structure that represents the topology > of PCI buses. It should have more uses in the future (e.g., the standard IRQ > routing across PCI-PCI bridges). Isn't the bus topology already adequately represented in the pci_dev and pci_channel structures? I look at the pci autoconfig stuff as a bios replacement. The fact that we can use some of the same structures and functions to help us implement it is a bonus, but not a mandate to mess with the existing model. Isn't Linux already handling PCI-PCI bridges and multiple PCI channles fine already, or has our autoconfig code exposed some existing non-arch-specific weakness? Regards, Brad From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <066201c160d5$eb51ed40$3501010a@ltc.com> From: "Bradley D. LaRonde" References: <20011026210746.A20395@dev1.ltc.com> <3BDDACD2.7121F905@mvista.com> <04c801c160b0$1d62f660$3501010a@ltc.com> <3BDDDA7A.329F827D@mvista.com> Subject: Re: [Linux-mips-kernel]Re: PATCH: pci_auto bridge support Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 19:00:43 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mips@oss.sgi.com To: Jun Sun Cc: linux-mips@oss.sgi.com, linux-mips-kernel@lists.sourceforge.net Message-ID: <20011030000043.7WULMjfqrrfGznhSb2-zoUyofzY_eEhxifT8wnpPGic@z> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jun Sun" To: "Bradley D. LaRonde" Cc: ; Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 5:38 PM Subject: [Linux-mips-kernel]Re: PATCH: pci_auto bridge support > "Bradley D. LaRonde" wrote: > > > > I considered that, but since only this small chuck of run-once surrogate > > bios autoconfig code needs to know, I figured better keep it separate. > > > > I would vote to put it inside the hose structure: > > . It makes a workaround look like a real fix. :-) > > . In other implementations of pci_auto, hose is the private sys data of a pci > dev. Having a bus number inside is very useful (e.g., pci_ops can tell whether > it is type0 of type1 configuration based on the bus number rather than a shaky > NULL parent bus pointer). In the future, all pci_auto should be combined into > the pci driver. So that is probably the right direction to go. > > I think hose may evolve to be the data structure that represents the topology > of PCI buses. It should have more uses in the future (e.g., the standard IRQ > routing across PCI-PCI bridges). Isn't the bus topology already adequately represented in the pci_dev and pci_channel structures? I look at the pci autoconfig stuff as a bios replacement. The fact that we can use some of the same structures and functions to help us implement it is a bonus, but not a mandate to mess with the existing model. Isn't Linux already handling PCI-PCI bridges and multiple PCI channles fine already, or has our autoconfig code exposed some existing non-arch-specific weakness? Regards, Brad