lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Feb]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 09/24] PCI, powerpc: Register busn_res for root buses
On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 08:35:58 +1100
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 2012-02-09 at 11:24 -0800, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > My point is that the interface between the arch and the PCI core
> > should be simply the arch telling the core "this is the range of bus
> > numbers you can use." If the firmware doesn't give you the HW limits,
> > that's the arch's problem. If you want to assume 0..255 are
> > available, again, that's the arch's decision.
> >
> > But the answer to the question "what bus numbers are available to me"
> > depends only on the host bridge HW configuration. It does not depend
> > on what pci_scan_child_bus() found. Therefore, I think we can come up
> > with a design where pci_bus_update_busn_res_end() is unnecessary.
>
> In an ideal world yes. In a world where there are reverse engineered
> platforms on which we aren't 100% sure how thing actually work under the
> hood and have the code just adapt on "what's there" (and try to fix it
> up -sometimes-), thinks can get a bit murky :-)
>
> But yes, I see your point. As for what is the "correct" setting that
> needs to be done so that the patch doesn't end up a regression for us,
> I'll have to dig into some ancient HW to dbl check a few things. I hope
> 0...255 will just work but I can't guarantee it.
>
> What I'll probably do is constraint the core to the values in
> hose->min/max, and update selected platforms to put 0..255 in there when
> I know for sure they can cope.

But I think the point is, can't we intiialize the busn resource after
the first & last bus numbers have been determined? E.g. rather than
Yinghai's current:
+ pci_bus_insert_busn_res(bus, hose->first_busno, hose->last_busno);
+
/* Get probe mode and perform scan */
mode = PCI_PROBE_NORMAL;
if (node && ppc_md.pci_probe_mode)
@@ -1742,8 +1744,11 @@ void __devinit pcibios_scan_phb(struct pci_controller *hose)
of_scan_bus(node, bus);
}

- if (mode == PCI_PROBE_NORMAL)
+ if (mode == PCI_PROBE_NORMAL) {
+ pci_bus_update_busn_res_end(bus, 255);
hose->last_busno = bus->subordinate = pci_scan_child_bus(bus);
+ pci_bus_update_busn_res_end(bus, bus->subordinate);
+ }

we'd have something more like:

/* Get probe mode and perform scan */
mode = PCI_PROBE_NORMAL;
if (node && ppc_md.pci_probe_mode)
@@ -1742,8 +1744,11 @@ void __devinit pcibios_scan_phb(struct pci_controller *hose)
of_scan_bus(node, bus);
}

if (mode == PCI_PROBE_NORMAL)
hose->last_busno = bus->subordinate = pci_scan_child_bus(bus);

+ pci_bus_insert_busn_res(bus, hose->first_busno, hose->last_busno);

since we should have the final bus range by then? Setting the end to
255 and then changing it again doesn't make sense; and definitely makes
the code hard to follow.

--
Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-02-23 21:27    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans