On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 7:32 PM, JeffyChen <jeffy.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> Thanks for your reply.
>
> On 12/27/2017 07:56 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> > drivers/of/of_pci_irq.c | 49 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>> Please move this to drivers/pci/of.c (or perhaps create pci/of_irq.c).
>>
>>> > drivers/pci/Makefile | 1 +
>>> > drivers/pci/pci-driver.c | 10 +++++++
>>> > drivers/pci/pci-of.c | 75
>>> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>> We already have drivers/pci/of.c. It's not clear what the difference is
>> from the filenames. Either merge with of.c or perhaps of-pm.c.
>
>
> this new file does something similar to the pci-acpi.c and pci-mid.c..
pci-acpi.c has similar things to pci/of.c. The naming is just not consistent.
Also, I plan to move the rest of drivers/of/of_pci* to drivers/pci.
> and i am agree the naming is not clear, maybe we can rename both of those
> files to something like pci-pm-***.c?
At least pci-acpi.c is more than just PM functions, so that doesn't
make sense. Given that all the ACPI related functions are in 1 file,
we should do the same for DT.
>
> Hi Rafael, do you think this would make sense?
>
>
[...]
>>> >+static int __init of_pci_init(void)
>>> >+{
>>> >+ if (!acpi_disabled)
>>> >+ return 0;
>>> >+
>>> >+ pci_set_platform_pm(&of_pci_platform_pm);
>>
>> I guess no DT based system will override this?
>
>
> i think the !acpi_disabled means acpi been disabled or CONFIG_ACPI is
> undefined.
>
> and pci-acpi.c would only work when we have CONFIG_ACPI.
>
> but i have no idea about pci-mid.c or would it possible to have more
> platform pm ops in the future...maybe we should add some dependency in the
> Kconfig?
It's probably fine given there are only 2 other implementations so far.
Rob
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
