Messages in this thread | | | From | Jesse Barnes <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] 2.6 SGI Altix I/O code reorganization | Date | Wed, 6 Oct 2004 13:27:28 -0700 |
| |
On Wednesday, October 6, 2004 12:54 pm, Grant Grundler wrote: > Colin, > thanks for ACKing the feedback. > I think there is still some confusion... > > On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 02:09:54PM -0500, Colin Ngam wrote: > ... > > > > Mathew explained replacing the raw_pci_ops pointer is the Right Thing > > > and I suspect it's easier to properly implement. > > > > I believe we did just that. We did not touch pci_root_ops. > > Correct. The patch ignores/overides pci_root_ops with sn_pci_root_ops > (which is what I originally suggested). > > Mathew's point was only raw_pci_ops needs to point at a different > set of struct pci_raw_ops (see include/linux/pci.h).
Though now what's there seems awfully redundant, wouldn't you say? Just allowing direct access to pci_root_ops is a much simpler approach and gets rid of a bunch of extra, unneeded code (i.e. closer to Pat's original version).
> > Yes, would anybody allow us to make a platform specific callout > > from within generic pcibios_fixup_bus()??? > > If it can be avoided, preferably not. But that's up to Jesse/Tony I think.
If it was made a machine vector that's a no-op on everything but sn2, I think it would be fine. Doing it for the general sn_pci_init routine would let us get rid of the check for ia64_platform_is("sn2") in one of the routines, I think (which is nice if only for the consistency).
> Can you quote the bit of the patch which implements "if the bus does not > exist" check? > I can't find it.
In the current code it's:
for (i = 0; i < PCI_BUSES_TO_SCAN; i++) if (pci_bus_to_vertex(i)) pci_scan_bus(i, &sn_pci_ops, controller);
which causes the next loop to only fixup existing busses. But I don't see it in the new code.
> > One favour. Would you agree to letting this patch be included by Tony > > and we will come up with another patch to fix the 2 obvious items listed > > above? It will be great to avoid spinning this big patch.
The patch is ok with me, I think it's a big improvement over what's there in terms of readability.
I just checked out sn_set_affinity_irq() and it's a bit hard to see what's going on. Why does a new interrupt have to be allocated? Also, it looks like the kfree() is one line too high, if sn_intr_alloc fails, we'll leak new_sn_irq_info.
Jesse - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |