Messages in this thread | | | From | "Kirill A. Shutemov" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 4/6] PCI: acpiphp: check for new devices on enabled host | Date | Wed, 26 Jun 2013 12:39:30 +0300 (EEST) |
| |
Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 7:22 PM, Mika Westerberg > <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > Current acpiphp_check_bridge() implementation is pretty dumb: > > - it enables the slot if it's not enabled and the slot status is > > ACPI_STA_ALL; > > - it disables the slot if it's enabled and slot is not in ACPI_STA_ALL > > state. > > > > This behavior is not enough to handle Thunderbolt chaining case > > properly. We need to actually rescan for new devices even if a device > > has already in the slot. > > > > The new implementation disables and stops the slot if it's not in > > ACPI_STA_ALL state. > > > > For ACPI_STA_ALL state we first trim devices which don't respond and > > look for the ones after that. We do that even if slot already enabled > > (SLOT_ENABLED). > > Just a couple of nitpicks below. > > > list_for_each_entry(slot, &bridge->slots, node) { > > + struct pci_bus *bus = slot->bridge->pci_bus; > > + struct pci_dev *dev, *tmp; > > + int retval; > > + > > + mutex_lock(&slot->crit_sect); > > Does it make sense to introduce a helper let's say > __acpiphp_check_slot() and put there all lines inside this mutex?
No. Why?
> > + if (get_slot_status(slot) == ACPI_STA_ALL) { > > + /* remove stale devices if any */ > > + list_for_each_entry_safe(dev, tmp, > > + &bus->devices, bus_list) { > > + if (PCI_SLOT(dev->devfn) != slot->device) > > + continue; > > + pci_trim_stale_devices(dev); > > Perhaps > > list_for_each_entry_safe(dev, tmp, &bus->devices, bus_list) { > if (PCI_SLOT(dev->devfn) == slot->device) > pci_trim_stale_devices(dev); > }
Makes sense, thanks.
-- Kirill A. Shutemov
| |