From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e23smtp09.au.ibm.com ([202.81.31.142]:57074 "EHLO e23smtp09.au.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751871Ab3IKApx (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Sep 2013 20:45:53 -0400 Received: from /spool/local by e23smtp09.au.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 21:39:29 +1000 Received: from d23relay05.au.ibm.com (d23relay05.au.ibm.com [9.190.235.152]) by d23dlp01.au.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A34062CE8051 for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 10:45:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from d23av04.au.ibm.com (d23av04.au.ibm.com [9.190.235.139]) by d23relay05.au.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id r8B0TFkD4260274 for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 10:29:15 +1000 Received: from d23av04.au.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d23av04.au.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id r8B0jiFA017346 for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 10:45:45 +1000 Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 08:45:40 +0800 From: Wei Yang To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Cc: Wei Yang , Bjorn Helgaas , "linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" , Kenji Kaneshige , Alex Chiang Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] PCI: use pci_is_root_bus() to check whether it is a root bus Message-ID: <20130911004540.GA7654@weiyang.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: Wei Yang References: <1378431958-7874-1-git-send-email-weiyang@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20130906230941.GC12956@google.com> <20130909070017.GB3726@weiyang.vnet.ibm.com> <20130910074611.GA11724@weiyang.vnet.ibm.com> <1378808696.4121.9.camel@pasglop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <1378808696.4121.9.camel@pasglop> Sender: linux-pci-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 08:24:56PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: >On Tue, 2013-09-10 at 15:46 +0800, Wei Yang wrote: >> On some platforms, like powernv, each pci-dev has a dev-tree node to represent >> it. The dev-tree node is set by pci_set_of_node() during pci_scan_device(). >> >> In pci_set_of_node(), it searchs for the node with the same devfn in its >> parent. Here comes the question, who should be the VF's parent. Would be a >> conflict for the devfn between PF and VF? > >I think it makes no sense to create OFW nodes for VFs under powernv anyway ... > >(which is another reason why we need urgently to disconnect the EEH data >from the device node ...) Ok, got it. > >Cheers, >Ben. > -- Richard Yang Help you, Help me