From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D14282C019C for ; Sat, 28 Sep 2013 07:47:01 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <1380318405.27811.37.camel@pasglop> Subject: Re: Please revert 928bea964827d7824b548c1f8e06eccbbc4d0d7d From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: Linus Torvalds Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2013 07:46:45 +1000 In-Reply-To: References: <1380270519.27811.10.camel@pasglop> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: Bjorn Helgaas , "linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" , Yinghai Lu , linuxppc-dev , Linux Kernel list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, 2013-09-27 at 10:10 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > So i would like to use the first way that you suggest : call pci_set_master > > PCIe port driver. > > So I have to say, that if we can fix this with just adding a single > new pci_set_master() call, we should do that before we decide to > revert. > > If other, bigger issues then come up, we can decide to revert. But if > there's a one-liner fix, let's just do that first, ok? > > Mind sending a patch? Wouldn't it be better to simply have pci_enable_device() always set bus master on a bridge? I don't see any case where it makes sense to have an enabled bridge without the master bit set on it... Cheers, Ben.