Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 13 May 2009 10:08:20 -0700 | From | Jeremy Fitzhardinge <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 06/10] x86/PCI: Enable scanning of all pci functions |
| |
Jesse Barnes wrote: > On Tue, 12 May 2009 14:48:07 -0700 > Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org> wrote: > > >> From: Alex Nixon <alex.nixon@citrix.com> >> >> Xen may want to enable scanning of all pci functions - if for example >> the device at function 0 is not passed through to the guest, but the >> device at function 1 is. >> >> [Impact: allow passthrough of just some PCI functions.] >> Signed-off-by: Alex Nixon <alex.nixon@citrix.com> >> Signed-off-by: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@citrix.com> >> Reviewed-by: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com> >> Reviewed-by: Matthew Wilcox <willy@linux.intel.com> >> --- >> arch/x86/include/asm/pci.h | 8 +++++++- >> arch/x86/pci/common.c | 1 + >> 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/pci.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/pci.h >> index b51a1e8..092706e 100644 >> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/pci.h >> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/pci.h >> @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ struct pci_sysdata { >> extern int pci_routeirq; >> extern int noioapicquirk; >> extern int noioapicreroute; >> +extern int pci_scan_all_fns; >> >> /* scan a bus after allocating a pci_sysdata for it */ >> extern struct pci_bus *pci_scan_bus_on_node(int busno, struct >> pci_ops *ops, @@ -48,7 +49,11 @@ extern unsigned int >> pcibios_assign_all_busses(void); #else >> #define pcibios_assign_all_busses() 0 >> #endif >> -#define pcibios_scan_all_fns(a, b) 0 >> + >> +static inline int pcibios_scan_all_fns(struct pci_bus *bus, int >> devfn) +{ >> + return pci_scan_all_fns; >> +} >> >> extern unsigned long pci_mem_start; >> #define PCIBIOS_MIN_IO 0x1000 >> @@ -130,6 +135,7 @@ extern void pci_iommu_alloc(void); >> >> /* generic pci stuff */ >> #include <asm-generic/pci.h> >> +#undef pcibios_scan_all_fns >> > > This is a little gross... But then I don't see any places where it's > actually defined to something true either.
I've got some code to set it in a series I haven't posted yet.
> Maybe it should be a weak > function or a new HAVE_FOO define instead. >
I'd probably go the weak function path if I were to do either of those, but do you think it would be significantly better?
J
| |