On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 8:57 AM, Liviu Dudau <Liviu.Dudau@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 11:44:51PM +0100, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 4:07 AM, Liviu Dudau <Liviu.Dudau@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 10:14:18AM +0100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 2014-04-07 at 09:46 +0100, Liviu Dudau wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > *My* strategy is to get rid of pci_domain_nr(). I don't see why we need
>> >> > to have arch specific way of providing the number, specially after looking
>> >> > at the existing implementations that return a value from a variable that
>> >> > is never touched or incremented. My guess is that pci_domain_nr() was
>> >> > created to work around the fact that there was no domain_nr maintainance in
>> >> > the generic code.
>> >>
>> >> Well, there was no generic host bridge structure. There is one now, it should
>> >> go there.
>> >
>> > Exactly! Hence my patch. After it gets accepted I will go through architectures
>> > and remove their version of pci_domain_nr().
>>
>> Currently the arch has to supply pci_domain_nr() because that's the
>> only way for the generic code to learn the domain. After you add
>> pci_create_root_bus_in_domain(), the arch can supply the domain that
>> way, and we won't need the arch-specific pci_domain_nr(). Right?
>> That makes more sense to me; thanks for the explanation.
>>
>> Let me try to explain my concern about the
>> pci_create_root_bus_in_domain() interface. We currently have these
>> interfaces:
>>
>> pci_scan_root_bus()
>> pci_scan_bus()
>> pci_scan_bus_parented()
>> pci_create_root_bus()
>>
>> pci_scan_root_bus() is a higher-level interface than
>> pci_create_root_bus(), so I'm trying to migrate toward it because it
>> lets us remove a little code from the arch, e.g., pci_scan_child_bus()
>> and pci_bus_add_devices().
>>
>> I think we can only remove the arch-specific pci_domain_nr() if that
>> arch uses pci_create_root_bus_in_domain(). When we convert an arch
>> from using scan_bus interfaces to using
>> pci_create_root_bus_in_domain(), we will have to move the rest of the
>> scan_bus code (pci_scan_child_bus(), pci_bus_add_devices()) back into
>> the arch code.
>>
>> One alternative is to add an _in_domain() variant of each of these
>> interfaces, but that doesn't seem very convenient either. My idea of
>> passing in a structure would also require adding variants, so there's
>> not really an advantage there, but I am thinking of the next
>> unification effort, e.g., for NUMA node info. I don't really want to
>> have to change all the _in_domain() interfaces to also take yet
>> another parameter for the node number.
>
> ...
> My understanding is that when pci_host_bridge structure was introduced
> you were trying to keep the APIs unchanged and hence the creation of a
> bridge was hidden inside the pci_create_root_bus() function.
You mean pci_alloc_host_bridge()? Right; ideally I would have used
pci_scan_root_bus() everywhere and gotten rid of pci_create_root_bus().
The outline of pci_scan_root_bus() is:
pci_create_root_bus()
pci_scan_child_bus()
pci_bus_add_devices()
The problem was that several arches do interesting things scattered among
that core. The ACPI host bridge driver used on x86 and ia64 does resource
allocation before pci_bus_add_devices(), as does parisc. Probably all
arches should do this, but they don't.
And powerpc and sparc use of_scan_bus() or something similar instead of
pci_scan_child_bus(). They probably *could* provide config space accessors
that talk to OF and would allow pci_scan_child_bus() to work. But that
seemed like too much work at the time.
> If we want to store the domain_nr information in the host bridge structure,
> together with a pointer to sysdata, then we need to break up the creation
> of the pci_host_bridge from the creation of a root bus. At that moment,
> pci_scan_root_bus() will need to be changed to accept a pci_host_bridge
> pointer, while pci_scan_bus() and pci_scan_bus_parented() will create
> the host bridge in the body of their function.
It's hard to change an existing interface like pci_scan_root_bus() because
it's called from so many places and you have to change them all at once.
Then if something goes wrong, the revert makes a mess for everybody. But
I think it makes sense to add a new interface that does what you want.
Bjorn
--
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
