From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 463EA379988; Fri, 12 Jun 2026 14:12:44 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1781273567; cv=none; b=VfUJu5bz3SF95ndaSzflWGm5DJrp1nBvnqifFWXjmt7q9/T4Tl6n/NKBKR7HOhlZmPKHuI+ujYxpsvBJlZNVMG9/Rx8D8oOM4FbnUh1G6zX8mxBlptmnjsshs52yGhZp+mInxZY3gfBP04JqeMjOpgDdMaUqKkfDUJuzYqkeCCM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1781273567; c=relaxed/simple; bh=nDce2hOE1x0f7fv3crzzrikracErWax9PlL83Z00jgQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=Qg9O9wCptgN3WLdMDxMbjd7khe98kzY+oz62XPg9funA4uXPRFk3tLlT9Jxbs+oAabFVLJ4hnqboGvlbAa9+pA6P9C4eLB5STdEFhIExRujGBF5JEBiPQ996K3mkXIH81CC58CENh8mn3ML7h3ky0NoyjmdSZj5tTro/K/xmA2w= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=QnVXc1H/; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="QnVXc1H/" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 815BA1F000E9; Fri, 12 Jun 2026 14:12:44 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1781273564; bh=gkRlOqWLDOL9V+xajZiBlg7nENjsjV7EqIVO2RaSGlw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To; b=QnVXc1H/a8sNOm8x1VwpAxSFKDIfDkRD5dUSM49LtKBcWLfxkmHekfPrhUyNNTf8L 5ezf0IHHCUrGBfbuV9tUuDwmblmbqRve/V9MZisaCk8PZuWjaVo6RGNPM8W0xWVO3u 9tTKsI1lrCVlMmJPBYwFP4w2LEffEFx6+phQ+4HGZp0JuutB/h3Q6gh1FtfRGJrEBb r7BqkkcPquea/RjbpysjQYMzWT6yPECsQY7LzvMTpq0jMmJjZGQvYxrKW9X9KdtyN6 Kn9YCW9Y+aU9n6hAXD8v5+Kb+I4q+kY9Ab+8BXDE8rd/OaD2/5O1GaF+JKNf6h0LFd qZuUBhHAj7eTQ== Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2026 09:12:43 -0500 From: Bjorn Helgaas To: Ilpo =?utf-8?B?SsOkcnZpbmVu?= Cc: Bjorn Helgaas , linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, Shawn Jin , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Madhavan Srinivasan , Michael Ellerman , Nicholas Piggin , LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/11] PCI: Lower bound bridge window alignment Message-ID: <20260612141243.GA596363@bhelgaas> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <4a35f669-b13b-c07a-fbd6-a8ea1ce9a38b@linux.intel.com> On Fri, Jun 12, 2026 at 02:50:17PM +0300, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > On Wed, 29 Apr 2026, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > > > pci_resource_alignment() does not consider bridge windows special, > > yet their alignment is subject to different requirements from BAR > > alignment. > > > > Add lower bound to bridge window alignment to help callers out to > > always have large enough alignment. > > > > Signed-off-by: Ilpo Järvinen > > Hi Bjorn, > > Could you please pull this change and the subsequent one, the commits in > pci/resource: > > ae09d28ecbbc ("PCI: Lower bound bridge window alignment") > cf996b886675 ("PCI: Return valid alignment for assigned resources") Sure, I dropped these two patches from pci/resource. The rest are still heading to v7.2. Thanks! > The rest of the changes in this series seem okay and can proceed if you're > okay with keeping a partial series. > > The reason for this request is the dev->bus vs dev->subordinate issue > sashiko mentioned in its review. > > I've tried to come up with a solution to that but it has become so ugly > I have not been very happy with it. Maybe there's no other way but the > problem boils down with pci_min_window_alignment() having to be capable of > dealing two cases, each lacking one of the key pointers (bus or bridge > dev): > > 1) root bus without bus->self > 2) bridge without a subordinate bus struct (if subordinate bus' alloc > failed) > > Only way to solve that I could think of is passing both the bus and the > bridge device to pci_min_window_alignment() and the related arch side > function pcibios_window_alignment(). The ugliest parts then involve > getting a bus pointer compatible with both of those cases, like this: > > struct pci_controller *phb = pci_bus_to_host(bus ? bus : bridge->bus); > > But it's too late in the cycle now to try even that, IMO, so better to > wait to the next cycle. > > -- > i.