From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.186]:51605 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751242AbaBRTNP (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Feb 2014 14:13:15 -0500 From: Arnd Bergmann To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Cc: Jason Gunthorpe , Liviu Dudau , "linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" , Will Deacon , Kumar Gala , "bhelgaas@google.com" , Russell King Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] PCI: ARM: add support for generic PCI host controller Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 20:13:05 +0100 Message-ID: <1507733.rhSv1eYnEK@wuerfel> In-Reply-To: <20140218184542.GA22004@obsidianresearch.com> References: <1392236171-10512-1-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.com> <1663692.UxtD9eTEBL@wuerfel> <20140218184542.GA22004@obsidianresearch.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: linux-pci-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tuesday 18 February 2014 11:45:42 Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > > Do we even need stable domain numbers? If we do, aliases sound fine. > > A more complex method would be to sort them by MMIO window address > > or perhaps by phandle. > > PCI ordering has been a bane in the past on x86, so I think stable > domain numbers is certainly desirable. Particularly since the domain > number may be influenced by module load order Alises followed by > sorting by phandle sounds great to me. Ok, makes sense. Let's make sure we come up with a stable numbering enforced by DT then, and warn when it's not there (or refuse to work even). Arnd