From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>
Cc: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
Kenji Kaneshige <kaneshige.kenji@jp.fujitsu.com>,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org,
Hiroo Matsumoto <matsumoto.hiroo@jp.fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Add pcibios_device_change_notifier
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 09:24:41 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1339457081.9220.35.camel@pasglop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAErSpo79RDid=4m+Q8FZxnhThQ9BAJo4HhtZ8ZQ5rGc1nmvH-w@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, 2012-06-11 at 16:51 -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > This makes me a bit nervous (that doesn't mean it's not right, but
> > we need some careful auditing & testing here, which I won't be
> > able to do until I'm back from leave). Mostly due to the change in when
> > we do the work.
> >
> > pcibios_fixup_bus() used to be called early on in the initial scan pass.
> >
> > Your code causes the code to be called -much- later when registering the
> > device with the device model. Are we 100% certain nothing will happen in
> > between that might rely on the stuff being setup already ? It might well
> > be ok, but I want us to triple check that.
>
> Here's my theory on this: we're setting up DMA and IRQ stuff. DMA and
> IRQ usage is device-specific, so the core can't do anything with them.
> Only drivers know how to use them. Drivers can't find the device
> until it's registered with the device model. So it seems like it
> should be safe to move it later. Subject to thinkos and testing in
> the real world, of course :)
I am aware of that and that's why I say "might well be ok" :-) But this
is old code and you know what can happen in there ... might be a quirk
here or a piece of platform code there trying to fixup the IRQ for
example ... before we set it up. That sort of thing.
I should be allright, but I want to test, which I won't be able to do
properly before I'm back at work next week.
> > Now, if we are ok to do the setup that late (basically right before the
> > driver probe() routine gets called), would it make sense to simplify
> > things even further ... and do it from pcibios_enable_device() ? Thus
> > avoiding the notifier business completely or is that pushing it too
> > far ?
>
> Kenji-san actually suggested using pcibios_enable_device() early on,
> and I'm the one who suggested the notifiers instead. I think I
> suggested that because I was copying the amd_iommu_init_notifier()
> style.
>
> But I now think that might have been a mistake. Notifiers are
> definitely more complicated, and a pcibios_*() hook seems
> straightforward. It could be in pcibios_enable_device(), though we
> only need it to be called once, and the enable_device() path may be
> called many times, e.g., every time a driver claims it. My new vote
> is a pcibios_device_add(), with an empty weak definition in
> drivers/pci, and a non-empty definition for microblaze and powerpc.
Would it be called before or after the notifiers ? I wonder... if others
already use the notifiers maybe we should stick to it. I only suggested
pcibios_enable_device() because it's already there.
> > Also you seem to add:
> >
> > + /* Setup OF node pointer in the device */
> > + dev->dev.of_node = pci_device_to_OF_node(dev);
> >
> > This shouldn't be needed anymore, the device node should be setup by the
> > core nowadays. Is this just a remnant of you rebasing an old patch or do
> > you have a good reason to add this statement ?
>
> It sounds like you want to remove this line in any case, so I'll wait
> for updated patches.
Cheers,
Ben.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-06-11 23:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-05-23 2:33 [PATCH v2 0/2] Add pcibios_device_change_notifier Hiroo Matsumoto
2012-06-06 5:26 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2012-06-07 12:45 ` Hiroo Matsumoto
2012-06-07 21:31 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2012-06-11 22:51 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2012-06-11 23:24 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt [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=1339457081.9220.35.camel@pasglop \
--to=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org \
--cc=kaneshige.kenji@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=matsumoto.hiroo@jp.fujitsu.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).