* pci_dlpar.c & probe mode
@ 2006-03-24 0:36 Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2006-03-24 16:16 ` John Rose
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt @ 2006-03-24 0:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linuxppc-dev
Hi !
I noticed that pcibios_add_pci_devices() test the platform type to
decide wether to do a device-tree based probe or a direct PCI probe. Why
can't it use ppc_md.probe_mode() like the rest of the PCI code does ?
Ben.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: pci_dlpar.c & probe mode
2006-03-24 0:36 pci_dlpar.c & probe mode Benjamin Herrenschmidt
@ 2006-03-24 16:16 ` John Rose
2006-03-24 21:48 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: John Rose @ 2006-03-24 16:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt; +Cc: External List
> I noticed that pcibios_add_pci_devices() test the platform type to
> decide wether to do a device-tree based probe or a direct PCI probe. Why
> can't it use ppc_md.probe_mode() like the rest of the PCI code does ?
I can't see a good reason either! :) I'll have a patch in two shakes of
a lamb's tail.
On a related note, I don't understand why devtree-based probe is only
desirable for the LPAR case (on pSeries).
Also, do we anticipate future probe modes for new platforms or
something? Adding such logic to ppc_md seems like mucho infrastructure
to answer a simple question (lpar or not). For exmaple, _machine gets
used all over the pmac code.
John
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: pci_dlpar.c & probe mode
2006-03-24 16:16 ` John Rose
@ 2006-03-24 21:48 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt @ 2006-03-24 21:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: John Rose; +Cc: External List
On Fri, 2006-03-24 at 10:16 -0600, John Rose wrote:
> > I noticed that pcibios_add_pci_devices() test the platform type to
> > decide wether to do a device-tree based probe or a direct PCI probe. Why
> > can't it use ppc_md.probe_mode() like the rest of the PCI code does ?
>
> I can't see a good reason either! :) I'll have a patch in two shakes of
> a lamb's tail.
>
> On a related note, I don't understand why devtree-based probe is only
> desirable for the LPAR case (on pSeries).
I think it was dictated by a conservative approach .. it's necessary for
LPAR and we didn't want to change the behaviour on older machines...
besides, things like bare metal may not provide the PCI nodes in OF and
use the same code base.
> Also, do we anticipate future probe modes for new platforms or
> something? Adding such logic to ppc_md seems like mucho infrastructure
> to answer a simple question (lpar or not). For exmaple, _machine gets
> used all over the pmac code.
_machine is gone, see my last patch ... It's not only about lpar or
not .. on powermac, it's really a per-bus & per machine generation
decision wether to trust OF or not..
Ben.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2006-03-24 21:49 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2006-03-24 0:36 pci_dlpar.c & probe mode Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2006-03-24 16:16 ` John Rose
2006-03-24 21:48 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
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).