From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 14 Jun 2001 11:30:23 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 14 Jun 2001 11:30:04 -0400 Received: from panic.ohr.gatech.edu ([130.207.47.194]:42127 "HELO havoc.gtf.org") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Thu, 14 Jun 2001 11:29:55 -0400 Message-ID: <3B28D870.179876B1@mandrakesoft.com> Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 11:29:52 -0400 From: Jeff Garzik Organization: MandrakeSoft X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.6-pre3 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "David S. Miller" Cc: Tom Gall , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Going beyond 256 PCI buses In-Reply-To: <3B273A20.8EE88F8F@vnet.ibm.com> <3B28C6C1.3477493F@mandrakesoft.com> <15144.51504.8399.395200@pizda.ninka.net> <3B28CB1A.E8226801@mandrakesoft.com> <15144.52565.566355.291642@pizda.ninka.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org "David S. Miller" wrote: > Jeff Garzik writes: > > Why do you want to make the bus number larger than the PCI bus number > > register? > > This isn't it. What I'm trying to provoke thought on is > "is there a way to make mindless apps using these syscalls > work transparently" > > I think the answer is no. Apps should really fetch info out > of /proc/bus/pci and use the controller ioctl. > > But someone could surprise me :-) yeah, those syscalls weren't built with much eye towards the future. And I don't think they are present in other OS's either... > > It seems like adding 'unsigned int domain_num' makes more sense, and is > > more correct. Maybe that implies fixing up other code to use a > > (domain,bus) pair, but that's IMHO a much better change than totally > > changing the interpretation of pci_bus::bus_number... > > Correct, I agree. But I don't even believe we should be sticking > the domain thing into struct pci_bus. > > It's a platform thing. Most platforms have a single domain, so why > clutter up struct pci_bus with this value? By this reasoning we could > say that since it's arch-specific, this stuff belongs in sysdata or > wherever. Pretty much any arch with a PCI slot can have multiple domains, now that hotplug controllers are out and about. So it seems a generic enough concept to me... > And this is what is happening right now. So in essence, the work is > done :-) The only "limiting factor" is that x86 doesn't support > multiple domains as some other platforms do. So all these hot-plug > patches just need to use domains properly, and perhaps add domain > support to X86 when one of these hot-plug capable controllers are > being used. point. Regards, Jeff -- Jeff Garzik | Andre the Giant has a posse. Building 1024 | MandrakeSoft |