From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:41333 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753664AbbGWROu (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Jul 2015 13:14:50 -0400 Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 18:15:25 +0100 From: Lorenzo Pieralisi To: Bjorn Helgaas Cc: Marc Zyngier , "linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , Pratyush Anand , Arnd Bergmann , Jingoo Han , Simon Horman , Russell King , Thomas Petazzoni , Thierry Reding , Michal Simek , James Morse , Gabriele Paoloni , Jayachandran C Subject: Re: [RFT PATCH] ARM: pci: kill pcibios_msi_controller Message-ID: <20150723171514.GA23324@red-moon> References: <1436784206-14414-1-git-send-email-lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com> <20150722090248.GA344@red-moon> <55AF6149.4000601@arm.com> <20150722124929.GA537@red-moon> <20150723151018.GY21967@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20150723151018.GY21967@google.com> Sender: linux-pci-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 04:10:18PM +0100, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 01:49:29PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > > > > >> @@ -483,14 +471,25 @@ static void pcibios_init_hw(struct device *parent, struct hw_pci *hw, > > > >> break; > > > >> } > > > >> > > > >> - if (hw->scan) > > > >> + if (hw->scan) { > > > >> sys->bus = hw->scan(nr, sys); > > > >> - else > > > >> - sys->bus = pci_scan_root_bus(parent, sys->busnr, > > > >> - hw->ops, sys, &sys->resources); > > > >> + if (!sys->bus) > > > >> + panic("PCI: unable to scan bus!"); > > > > > > This was in the original code, but I have to ask: Do we really want to > > > panic the kernel if we couldn't scan the bus? Worse case, the system > > > won't be able to boot at all and will panic somewhere else anyway, but > > > we should give the user a chance to understand what's happening... > > > > No, it was in the original code but I was very tempted to remove it > > or merge the error paths and make it a warning, and that's what I am > > going to do, unless someone complains (that panic statement has been there > > forever). > > I agree the panic should be removed. I would do it in a separate patch > since it's not related to your main objective here. Ok, I will post v2 shortly. Thanks ! Lorenzo