[PATCH 1/3] PCI: add a callback to struct pci_host_bridge for adding a new device

[lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com (Lorenzo Pieralisi)]

On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 11:04:53PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 10:59 PM Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 02:52:28PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 02, 2018 at 05:54:30PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> 
> > > This patch seems OK to me.
> > >
> > > I don't really care about the prototype.  There's only one
> > > pcibios_add_device() implementation (x86) that returns anything other
> > > than 0, and that's a pretty obscure error case related to f9a37be0f02a
> > > ("x86: Use PCI setup data"), which lets us use ROM data from boot
> > > services.  Even then the only thing that happens is a WARN_ON().  A
> > > more descriptive printk would be a lot more useful.
> >
> > Thinking about this some more, I'm not so sure about the connection
> > with removing pcibios_add_device().  This host_bridge->add_dev() hook
> > would be for host bridge-specific things, while pcibios_add_device()
> > is for arch-specific things.
> >
> > I'd still love to get rid of pcibios_add_device() (especially the
> > non-arch-specific things like the pci_claim_resource() in s390); I'm
> > just not sure yet whether this particular patch is the vehicle.
> 
> I think most of the arch-specific pcibios_* calls are actually
> host bridge specific after all, it just so happens that they are
> implemented on architectures that only have one specific
> host bridge implementation, or that they are used on an
> architecture that does something odd in one place and needs
> to do something else in another place.
> 
> For pci_claim_resource() we seem to be doing this in a number
> of different places, but there isn't strictly a reason for that.

pci_claim_resource() is needed if either arch code or the host
controller driver does not trigger a resources assignment (which claims
them while at it); in theory that's arch agnostic but it turned out to
be very arch/platform specific - aka if we move s390 code to core code
we will notice :) so pci_claim_resource() in a pcibios call is
unfortunately legitimate - whether it can be moved out of it to
generic code that's a very complicated problem.

Lorenzo