linux-pci.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>
To: Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@linux.intel.com>
Cc: "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
	Marc Zyngier <Marc.Zyngier@arm.com>,
	"hanjun.guo@linaro.org" <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>,
	Liviu Dudau <Liviu.Dudau@arm.com>,
	Yijing Wang <wangyijing@huawei.com>, Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
	Lv Zheng <lv.zheng@intel.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
	"x86 @ kernel . org" <x86@kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [Patch v5 4/6] PCI/ACPI: Consolidate common PCI host bridge code into ACPI core
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 17:12:30 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150609161230.GC8591@red-moon> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1433780448-18636-5-git-send-email-jiang.liu@linux.intel.com>

On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 05:20:46PM +0100, Jiang Liu wrote:

[...]

> +static int acpi_pci_probe_root_resources(struct acpi_pci_root_info *info)
> +{
> +	int ret;
> +	struct list_head *list = &info->resources;
> +	struct acpi_device *device = info->bridge;
> +	struct resource_entry *entry, *tmp;
> +	unsigned long flags;
> +
> +	flags = IORESOURCE_IO | IORESOURCE_MEM | IORESOURCE_MEM_8AND16BIT;

Is IORESOURCE_MEM_8AND16BIT required because of some pending patches
that will change ACPI resource filtering ? It does not seem to make
a difference in the mainline code, AFAICT.

> +	ret = acpi_dev_get_resources(device, list,
> +				     acpi_dev_filter_resource_type_cb,
> +				     (void *)flags);
> +	if (ret < 0)
> +		dev_warn(&device->dev,
> +			 "failed to parse _CRS method, error code %d\n", ret);
> +	else if (ret == 0)
> +		dev_dbg(&device->dev,
> +			"no IO and memory resources present in _CRS\n");
> +	else {
> +		resource_list_for_each_entry_safe(entry, tmp, list) {
> +			if (entry->res->flags & IORESOURCE_DISABLED)
> +				resource_list_destroy_entry(entry);
> +			else
> +				entry->res->name = info->name;
> +		}
> +		acpi_pci_root_validate_resources(&device->dev, list,
> +						 IORESOURCE_MEM);
> +		acpi_pci_root_validate_resources(&device->dev, list,
> +						 IORESOURCE_IO);
> +	}
> +
> +	return ret;
> +}
> +
> +static void pci_acpi_root_add_resources(struct acpi_pci_root_info *info)
> +{
> +	struct resource_entry *entry, *tmp;
> +	struct resource *res, *conflict, *root = NULL;
> +
> +	resource_list_for_each_entry_safe(entry, tmp, &info->resources) {
> +		res = entry->res;
> +		if (res->flags & IORESOURCE_MEM)
> +			root = &iomem_resource;
> +		else if (res->flags & IORESOURCE_IO)
> +			root = &ioport_resource;
> +		else
> +			continue;
> +
> +		conflict = insert_resource_conflict(root, res);
> +		if (conflict) {
> +			dev_info(&info->bridge->dev,
> +				 "ignoring host bridge window %pR (conflicts with %s %pR)\n",
> +				 res, conflict->name, conflict);
> +			resource_list_destroy_entry(entry);
> +		}
> +	}
> +}
> +
> +static void __acpi_pci_root_release_info(struct acpi_pci_root_info *info)
> +{
> +	struct resource *res;
> +	struct resource_entry *entry, *tmp;
> +
> +	if (!info)
> +		return;
> +
> +	resource_list_for_each_entry_safe(entry, tmp, &info->resources) {
> +		res = entry->res;
> +		if (res->parent &&
> +		    (res->flags & (IORESOURCE_MEM | IORESOURCE_IO)))
> +			release_resource(res);

> +		resource_list_destroy_entry(entry);
> +	}
> +
> +	info->ops->release_info(info);
> +}
> +
> +static void acpi_pci_root_release_info(struct pci_host_bridge *bridge)
> +{
> +	struct resource *res;
> +	struct resource_entry *entry;
> +
> +	resource_list_for_each_entry(entry, &bridge->windows) {
> +		res = entry->res;
> +		if (res->parent &&
> +		    (res->flags & (IORESOURCE_MEM | IORESOURCE_IO)))
> +			release_resource(res);
> +	}

It is a question: is this loop necessary given that we are already
releasing resources in __acpi_pci_root_release_info() ?

> +	__acpi_pci_root_release_info(bridge->release_data);
> +}
> +
> +struct pci_bus *acpi_pci_root_create(struct acpi_pci_root *root,
> +				     struct acpi_pci_root_ops *ops,
> +				     struct acpi_pci_root_info *info,
> +				     void *sysdata, int segment, int node)

I do not think you need to pass segment and node, they clutter the
function signature when you can retrieve them from root, I would
make them local variables and use root->segment and acpi_get_node
in the function body to retrieve them.

> +{
> +	int ret, busnum = root->secondary.start;
> +	struct acpi_device *device = root->device;
> +	struct pci_bus *bus;
> +
> +	info->root = root;
> +	info->bridge = device;
> +	info->ops = ops;
> +	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&info->resources);
> +	snprintf(info->name, sizeof(info->name), "PCI Bus %04x:%02x",
> +		 segment, busnum);
> +
> +	if (ops->init_info && ops->init_info(info))
> +		goto out_release_info;
> +	ret = acpi_pci_probe_root_resources(info);
> +	if (ops->prepare_resources)
> +		ret = ops->prepare_resources(info, ret);

You go through this ret passing song and dance because we may want to
call prepare_resources even if acpi_pci_probe_root_resource failed (on
x86), correct ? I will have a further look at x86 and ia64 if we
can consolidate these ops function hooks even further.

Thanks,
Lorenzo

> +	if (ret < 0)
> +		goto out_release_info;
> +	else if (ret > 0)
> +		pci_acpi_root_add_resources(info);
> +	pci_add_resource(&info->resources, &root->secondary);
> +
> +	bus = pci_create_root_bus(NULL, busnum, ops->pci_ops,
> +				  sysdata, &info->resources);
> +	if (bus) {
> +		pci_scan_child_bus(bus);
> +		pci_set_host_bridge_release(to_pci_host_bridge(bus->bridge),
> +					    acpi_pci_root_release_info, info);
> +		if (node != NUMA_NO_NODE)
> +			dev_printk(KERN_DEBUG, &bus->dev, "on NUMA node %d\n",
> +				   node);
> +		return bus;
> +	}
> +
> +out_release_info:
> +	__acpi_pci_root_release_info(info);
> +	return NULL;
> +}
> +
>  void __init acpi_pci_root_init(void)
>  {
>  	acpi_hest_init();
> diff --git a/include/linux/pci-acpi.h b/include/linux/pci-acpi.h
> index a965efa52152..a76cb6f24ca1 100644
> --- a/include/linux/pci-acpi.h
> +++ b/include/linux/pci-acpi.h
> @@ -52,6 +52,29 @@ static inline acpi_handle acpi_pci_get_bridge_handle(struct pci_bus *pbus)
>  	return ACPI_HANDLE(dev);
>  }
>  
> +struct acpi_pci_root;
> +struct acpi_pci_root_ops;
> +
> +struct acpi_pci_root_info {
> +	struct acpi_pci_root		*root;
> +	struct acpi_device		*bridge;
> +	struct acpi_pci_root_ops	*ops;
> +	struct list_head		resources;
> +	char				name[16];
> +};
> +
> +struct acpi_pci_root_ops {
> +	struct pci_ops *pci_ops;
> +	int (*init_info)(struct acpi_pci_root_info *info);
> +	void (*release_info)(struct acpi_pci_root_info *info);
> +	int (*prepare_resources)(struct acpi_pci_root_info *info, int status);
> +};
> +
> +extern struct pci_bus *acpi_pci_root_create(struct acpi_pci_root *root,
> +					    struct acpi_pci_root_ops *ops,
> +					    struct acpi_pci_root_info *info,
> +					    void *sd, int seg, int node);
> +
>  void acpi_pci_add_bus(struct pci_bus *bus);
>  void acpi_pci_remove_bus(struct pci_bus *bus);
>  
> -- 
> 1.7.10.4
> 

  reply	other threads:[~2015-06-09 16:12 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-06-08 16:20 [Patch v5 0/6] Consolidate ACPI PCI root common code into ACPI core Jiang Liu
2015-06-08 16:20 ` [Patch v5 1/6] ACPI/PCI: Enhance ACPI core to support sparse IO space Jiang Liu
2015-07-29 20:37   ` Bjorn Helgaas
2015-09-09  6:38     ` Jiang Liu
2015-09-09 14:54       ` Bjorn Helgaas
2015-06-08 16:20 ` [Patch v5 2/6] ia64/PCI/ACPI: Use common ACPI resource parsing interface for host bridge Jiang Liu
2015-06-08 16:20 ` [Patch v5 3/6] ia64/PCI: Use common struct resource_entry to replace struct iospace_resource Jiang Liu
2015-06-08 16:20 ` [Patch v5 4/6] PCI/ACPI: Consolidate common PCI host bridge code into ACPI core Jiang Liu
2015-06-09 16:12   ` Lorenzo Pieralisi [this message]
2015-06-09 16:58     ` Jiang Liu
2015-06-10 16:48       ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2015-06-10 17:19         ` Jiang Liu
2015-06-11 16:18           ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2015-07-29 20:54       ` Bjorn Helgaas
2015-07-29 20:24   ` Bjorn Helgaas
2015-06-08 16:20 ` [Patch v5 5/6] x86/PCI/ACPI: Use common interface to support PCI host bridge Jiang Liu
2015-06-08 16:20 ` [Patch v5 6/6] ia64/PCI/ACPI: " Jiang Liu
2015-07-29 12:17 ` [Patch v5 0/6] Consolidate ACPI PCI root common code into ACPI core Hanjun Guo
2015-07-29 20:30   ` Bjorn Helgaas
2015-07-30  7:58     ` Jiang Liu

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20150609161230.GC8591@red-moon \
    --to=lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com \
    --cc=Liviu.Dudau@arm.com \
    --cc=Marc.Zyngier@arm.com \
    --cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
    --cc=hanjun.guo@linaro.org \
    --cc=jiang.liu@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=lenb@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lv.zheng@intel.com \
    --cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
    --cc=wangyijing@huawei.com \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).