On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 12:51:19PM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Monday 10 November 2014 12:26:08 Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > ---
> > arch/arm64/kernel/pci.c | 14 +++--------
> > drivers/of/of_pci.c | 66 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> > include/linux/of_pci.h | 7 +++---
> > 3 files changed, 71 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/pci.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/pci.c
> > index ce5836c..5e21c1c 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/pci.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/pci.c
> > @@ -49,20 +49,14 @@ int pcibios_add_device(struct pci_dev *dev)
> >
> >
> > #ifdef CONFIG_PCI_DOMAINS_GENERIC
> > -static bool dt_domain_found = false;
> >
> > void pci_bus_assign_domain_nr(struct pci_bus *bus, struct device *parent)
> > {
> > - int domain = of_get_pci_domain_nr(parent->of_node);
> > + int domain = of_assign_pci_domain_nr(parent->of_node);
> >
> > - if (domain >= 0) {
> > - dt_domain_found = true;
> > - } else if (dt_domain_found == true) {
> > - dev_err(parent, "Node %s is missing \"linux,pci-domain\" property in DT\n",
> > - parent->of_node->full_name);
> > - return;
> > - } else {
> > - domain = pci_get_new_domain_nr();
> > + if (domain < 0) {
> > + dev_err(parent, "PCI domain assignment failed\n");
> > + domain = -1;
> > }
> >
> > bus->domain_nr = domain;
>
> Is there a need to still keep this in architecture specific code? Why
> not move it to drivers/pci and let other firmware infrastructure
> hook in there directly.
Ok, I can move the function to drivers/pci/pci.c, I did not want to add
OF code in there but if it is ok with Bjorn I will move the generic
pci_bus_assign_domain_nr()
there and be done with this.
> > {
> > @@ -45,10 +45,9 @@ of_pci_parse_bus_range(struct device_node *node, struct resource *res)
> > return -EINVAL;
> > }
> >
> > -static inline int
> > -of_get_pci_domain_nr(struct device_node *node)
> > +static inline int of_assign_pci_domain_nr(struct device_node *node)
> > {
> > - return -1;
> > + return pci_get_new_domain_nr();
> > }
> > #endif
>
> This gets a bit tricky otherwise once we add ACPI in the mix, with all
> combinations of OF and ACPI at compile time and at runtime.
I definitely agree, that's why it is an RFC, basically wanted to
understand what we want to do with the generic implementation and where
to move it.
Thanks,
Lorenzo
--
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
