From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from outbound-mail-108.bluehost.com (outbound-mail-108.bluehost.com [69.89.22.8]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 524F7DDFD4 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2008 05:46:06 +1100 (EST) From: Jesse Barnes To: linux-pci@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz Subject: Re: /proc/bus/pci and domains Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:39:11 -0800 References: <20080214044323.GB1176@kroah.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Message-Id: <200802141039.12045.jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org> Cc: Greg KH , paulus@samba.org, anton@samba.org, Martin Mares , linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thursday, February 14, 2008 1:40 am Martin Mares wrote: > Hi Greg! > > > I have no idea, it sounds like a PPC specific thing, not anything the > > PCI core does, right? So I'll add the ppc list to the cc: and ask if > > anyone there has any ideas? > > Unfortunately, this is not PPC specific at all -- proc_attach_device() > calls pci_proc_domain(bus), which is an arch-specific hook turning on > the weird behavior I described. This hook can return non-zero even on > x86 if there are buses outside domain 0. > > I think that the hook itself is correct, it only should trigger more > consistent behavior of the generic code :) > > Would it be acceptable for the PPC folks to modify the code to add > domain numbers to the device numbers in /proc/bus/pci/devices in the > same format as the bus directories already have? > > If so, I will cook up a patch. I've run into this too, on machines with many domains. It's unfortunate that there's no way to preserve compatibility, but I agree that the brokenness may as well be consistent. Jesse