Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 08 Sep 2015 21:35:39 +0800 | From | Hanjun Guo <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 01/11] ARM64 / PCI: introduce struct pci_controller for ACPI |
| |
On 09/07/2015 04:45 PM, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 05:14:22AM +0100, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote: >> Hi Hanjun, >> >> On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org> wrote: >>> Hi Liviu, >>> >>> On 2015???05???27??? 01:20, Jiang Liu wrote: >>>> >>>> On 2015/5/27 0:58, Liviu Dudau wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 01:49:14PM +0100, Hanjun Guo wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> ARM64 ACPI based PCI host bridge init needs a arch dependent >>>>>> struct pci_controller to accommodate common PCI host bridge >>>>>> code which is introduced later, or it will lead to compile >>>>>> errors on ARM64. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi Hanjun, >>>>> >>>>> Two questions: why don't you introduce this patch next to the >>>>> one that is going to make use of it (or even merge it there)? >>> >>> >>> this is because of this patch is needed by Jiang Liu's patch set >>> to fix the compile error on ARM64, I'd rather do that, but It's >>> better to let Jiang Liu's patch goes in, and then this one, that's >>> why I prepared a single patch for the struct. (I mentioned it >>> in the cover letter) >>> >>>>> Second, why is the whole struct pci_controller not surrounded >>>>> by #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI as you are implying that this is needed >>>>> only for ACPI? >>> >>> >>> I hope it can be reused, since the NUMA node and segment (domain) >>> is both needed for DT and ACPI, if it's not the case foe now, I >>> can surrounded them all by #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI. >> we can make use of this structure to hold pci to numa node >> mapping(pcibus_to_node). >> can you please pull node member out of CONFIG_ACPI ifdef. >> or you can put only acpi_device under ifdef. > > That struct disappeared in the latest series: > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/6/8/443
Yes, I think that is the right direction going.
> > we have to have a common way to handle the NUMA info in DT and ACPI > so we should still find a solution that can be shared between the two, > it is yet another thing to take into account for PCI ACPI on arm64.
Agreed, we can take that into account when finished the basic support.
Thanks Hanjun
| |