On Thursday 06 November 2014 10:05:18 Liviu Dudau wrote: > On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 11:17:43PM +0000, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 12:47:40PM +0100, Lucas Stach wrote: > > > This property was added by 41e5c0f81d3e > > > (of/pci: Add pci_get_new_domain_nr() and of_get_pci_domain_nr()) > > > without the required binding documentation. As this property > > > will be supported by a number of host bridge drivers going forward, > > > add it to the common PCI binding doc. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Lucas Stach <l.stach@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > I merged 41e5c0f81d3e through my tree, and I could merge something like > > this if a consensus develops with some acks. But I'll just let you guys > > handle it unless you poke me again. > > While I think the "linux,pci-domain" property *must* be documented, I > would like to get a consensus first on the usage. If we agree that > the property is mandatory to all host bridge drivers that use OF then > we need to patch existing drivers (partially done through Lorenzo's > patches, but other arches are ignoring it). If we say all *new* drivers > need to use it then we also need to come up with a strategy on how to > deal with old vs new school drivers. > > My preferred approach is the 3rd way: "linux,pci-domain" becomes part of > the core PCI infrastructure (and we find the common ground with ACPI). > That way the host bridge drivers don't have to do anything, but the DT > creators have to specify a value. > > Pinging Rob to try to get a peek on this thoughts. Parsing "linux,pci-domain" from the PCI core code seems like the best solution to me, but we still have to support dtbs that don't contain it. Lorenzo's patch gets this right I think. ACPI is easy here, because it already requires the domain to be explicit. Arnd -- 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
