[lkml]   [2013]   [Feb]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 00/22] PCI: Iterate pci host bridge instead of pci root bus
Em Tue, 5 Feb 2013 16:47:10 -0800
Yinghai Lu <> escreveu:

> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Bjorn Helgaas <> wrote:
> >
> > Maybe. I'd rather not introduce for_each_pci_host_bridge() at all, if
> > we can avoid it. Every place it's used is a place we have to audit to
> > make sure it's safe. I think your audit above is correct and
> > complete, but it relies on way too much architecture knowledge. It's
> > better if we can deduce correctness without knowing which arches
> > support hotplug and which CPUs support EDAC.
> >
> > As soon as for_each_pci_host_bridge() is in the tree, those uses can
> > be copied to even more places. It's a macro, so it's usable by any
> > module, even out-of-tree ones that we'll never see and can't fix. So
> > we won't really have a good way to deprecate and remove it.
> Now we only have two references in modules.
> drivers/edac/i7core_edac.c: for_each_pci_host_bridge(host_bridge) {
> drivers/pci/hotplug/sgi_hotplug.c: for_each_pci_host_bridge(host_bridge) {
> for the sgi_hotplug.c, it should be same problem that have for acpiphp
> and pciehp.
> need to make it support pci host bridge hotplug anyway.
> for edac, we need to check Mauro about their plan.

The i7core_pci_lastbus() code at i7core_edac is there to make it work
with some Nehalem/Nehalem-EP machines that hide the memory controller's
PCI ID by using an artificially low last bus. There's no plan to
support Nehalem-EX, as the information I got is that there's no way
to access the memory controller registers on it without interfering with

It should be noticed, however, that I got a report of a Sandy Bridge
server that is also hiding the memory controller's PCI address.
So, maybe we'll need to add later some logic at sb_edac to unhide the
memory controller, just like the one in i7core_edac.

> After those two are addressed, we can drop that EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL for
> pci_get_next_host_bridge.
> We do have pci_get_domain_bus_and_slot() as export symbol.
> So we export pci_get_next_host_bridge should be ok now.
> and it would be better than export root buses list.
> Thanks
> Yinghai



 \ /
  Last update: 2013-02-06 10:43    [W:0.104 / U:2.168 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site