From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Message-ID: <5553F5BF.2080802@linux.intel.com> Date: Thu, 14 May 2015 09:09:19 +0800 From: Jiang Liu MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Hanjun Guo , "Rafael J . Wysocki" , Bjorn Helgaas , Marc Zyngier , Yijing Wang , Len Brown CC: Lv Zheng , LKML , linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, "x86 @ kernel . org" , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [RFC v2 5/7] PCI/ACPI: Consolidate common PCI host bridge code into ACPI core References: <1430793970-11159-1-git-send-email-jiang.liu@linux.intel.com> <1430793970-11159-6-git-send-email-jiang.liu@linux.intel.com> <55531967.70507@linaro.org> <55534275.2040404@linux.intel.com> <555350B2.8050301@linaro.org> In-Reply-To: <555350B2.8050301@linaro.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 2015/5/13 21:25, Hanjun Guo wrote: > On 2015年05月13日 20:24, Jiang Liu wrote: >> On 2015/5/13 17:29, Hanjun Guo wrote: >>> Hi Jiang, >>> >>> On 2015年05月05日 10:46, Jiang Liu wrote: >>> >>> struct pci_controller { >>> struct acpi_device *companion; >>> void *iommu; >>> int segment; >>> int node; /* nearest node with memory or >>> NUMA_NO_NODE for global allocation */ >>> >>> void *platform_data; >>> }; >>> >>> except void *platform_data; >>> >>> On ARM64, the structure is almost the same, so how about >>> introduce >>> >>> struct pci_controller { >>> struct acpi_device *companion; /* ACPI companion device */ >>> void *iommu; /* IOMMU private data */ >>> int segment; /* PCI domain */ >>> int node; /* NUMA node */ >>> #ifdef CONFIG_IA64 >>> void *platform_data; >>> #endif >>> }; >>> >>> in this file, then can be used for all architectures? >> Current mode is that architecture defines its own version of >> struct pci_controller. It would be better to keep this pattern. > > OK, thanks for the clarify :) So how about add my basic > PCI support patch for ARM64 on top of you patch set to fix > this problem? Sure, please send me the patches and I will send out v3 to cover your review comments. Thanks! > > Thanks > Hanjun > >