linux-pci.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
	Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] arm/arm64: pci: remove arch specific pcibios_enable_device()
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 16:05:33 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160225160533.GA3596@red-moon> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160225152417.GB8120@localhost>

Hi Bjorn,

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 09:24:17AM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> Hi Lorenzo,
> 
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 04:22:15PM +0000, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 01:49:21PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 05:03:58PM +0000, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > > > The arm/arm64 pcibios_enable_device() implementations exist solely
> > > > to prevent enabling PCI resources on PROBE_ONLY systems, since
> > > > on those systems the PCI resources are currently not claimed (ie
> > > > validated and inserted in the PCI resource tree) therefore they can
> > > > not be enabled since this would trigger PCI set-ups failures.
> > > > 
> > > > By introducing resources claiming in the PCI host controllers set-ups
> > > > that have PROBE_ONLY as a probe option, there is no need for arch specific
> > > > pcibios_enable_device() implementations anymore in that the kernel can
> > > > rely on the generic pcibios_enable_device() implementation without
> > > > resorting to arch specific code to work around the missing resources
> > > > claiming enumeration step.
> > > > 
> > > > This patch removes the pcibios_enable_device() implementations from
> > > > the arm/arm64 arch back-ends.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>
> > > > Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
> > > > Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
> > > > Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>
> > > > Cc: Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
> > > > Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  arch/arm/kernel/bios32.c | 12 ------------
> > > >  arch/arm64/kernel/pci.c  | 13 -------------
> > > >  2 files changed, 25 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
> > 
> > Thanks, unfortunately I spotted that ARM platforms can set
> > PCI_PROBE_ONLY also via command line (pcibios_setup()), which means
> > that I have to add resource claiming to all ARM PCI controllers that
> > check PCI_PROBE_ONLY (inclusive of ARM bios32) to really make sure we
> > can apply this patch or alternatevely we add the resource claiming
> > to the pcibios_fixup_bus() callback (but we can claim resources only if
> > PCI_PROBE_ONLY is set lest we trigger regressions) which would be the
> > simpler solution.
> 
> So where are we?  The above response sounds like this series still
> needs a little tweaking?

Yes, I rewrote the generic PCI layer for claiming resources (Tomasz's
posted it in its ACPI PCI ARM64 series):

https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/2/16/412

My only concern is removing PCI_PROBE_ONLY handling from arm 32 bit code,
since I noticed it can be set on the command line there, claiming
resources in pcibios arm 32 should do the trick, I will move the ARM
32-bit handling in a separate patch (hopefully someone can help me test
it on affected platforms (?), I will ask Russell the best way to do it).

Thanks,
Lorenzo

      reply	other threads:[~2016-02-25 16:03 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-11-17 17:03 [PATCH 1/3] drivers: pci: add generic code to claim bus resources Lorenzo Pieralisi
2015-11-17 17:03 ` [PATCH 2/3] drivers: pci: host-generic: claim bus resources on PROBE_ONLY set-ups Lorenzo Pieralisi
2015-11-23 13:47   ` Will Deacon
2015-11-17 17:03 ` [PATCH 3/3] arm/arm64: pci: remove arch specific pcibios_enable_device() Lorenzo Pieralisi
2015-11-23 13:49   ` Will Deacon
2016-01-20 16:22     ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2016-02-25 15:24       ` Bjorn Helgaas
2016-02-25 16:05         ` Lorenzo Pieralisi [this message]

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=20160225160533.GA3596@red-moon \
    --to=lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com \
    --cc=arnd@arndb.de \
    --cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=helgaas@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
    --cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
    /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).