On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> So could use it with hot-added root bus.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> arch/x86/pci/i386.c | 58 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
>> 1 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/pci/i386.c b/arch/x86/pci/i386.c
>> index 84696ed..4fdf0b2 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/pci/i386.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/pci/i386.c
>> @@ -298,27 +298,51 @@ static void __init pcibios_allocate_resources(struct pci_bus *bus, int pass)
>> }
>> }
>>
>> +static void __init __pcibios_allocate_rom_resources(struct pci_bus *bus)
>> +{
>> + struct pci_dev *dev;
>> + struct pci_bus *child;
>> +
>> + list_for_each_entry(dev, &bus->devices, bus_list) {
>> + pcibios_allocate_dev_rom_resource(dev);
>> +
>> + child = dev->subordinate;
>> + if (child)
>> + __pcibios_allocate_rom_resources(child);
>
> I really dislike the "__" prefix on the function names. It seems
> pointless to add another function and the "__" when all you need is a
> test of PCI_ASSIGN_ROMS. Also, it makes the structure of
> __pcibios_allocate_rom_resources() different from
> pcibios_allocate_resources() when they should be exactly the same.
>
> What if you made pcibios_assign_resources() look like this:
>
> if (!!(pci_probe & PCI_ASSIGN_ROMS)) {
> list_for_each_entry(bus, &pci_root_buses, node)
> pcibios_allocate_rom_resources(bus);
> }
>
> Then I don't think you'd need the extra function.
ok, will just move pci_probe checking back to
pcibios_allocate_rom_resources directly.
Yinghai
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
