On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 02:11:36AM +0100, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > 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. OK, I understand your concern. It does sort of return us back to the initial discussion, where you were arguing against adding a new set of functions for every existing function, but it makes sense from transition point of view. Best regards, Liviu > > Bjorn > -- ==================== | I would like to | | fix the world, | | but they're not | | giving me the | \ source code! / --------------- ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ -- 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