On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Today we have this, which is more complicated than it should be. Note
> how we do some ACPI stuff, some PCI stuff, some more ACPI stuff, then
> more PCI stuff:
>
> acpi_pci_root_add
> pci_acpi_scan_root
> pci_scan_child_bus
> acpi_pci_irq_add_prt
> acpi_pci_osc_control_set
> acpi_pci_root_start
> pci_bus_add_devices
>
> I don't think the ACPI/PCI mixture is anything essential dictated by
> the way the hardware or firmware works. I think it's just an artifact
> of the current design, and it could be changed. It would be better to
> have this:
>
> acpi_pci_root_add
> acpi_pci_irq_add_prt
> acpi_pci_osc_control_set
> pci_acpi_scan_root
> pci_scan_root_bus
> pci_scan_child_bus
> pci_bus_add_devices
>
> We can't get to this latter strategy as long as the ACPI interfaces
> depend on the struct pci_bus. So the _PRT change is a small thing in
> itself, but I do think it helps enable significant improvements in the
> future.
still to handle to those fallback path like create_bus and scan bus failure.
in my for-pci-next branch, with Jiang's patches and mine, now we achieved at
acpi_pci_root_add
pci_acpi_scan_root
pci_scan_root_bus
pci_scan_child_bus
acpi_pci_osc_control_set
pci_bus_add_devices
acpi_pci_irq_add_prt is called later during acpi binding that is
triggered by adding to device tree.
thought os_control set via pci_host_bridge add interface..
with those BUS ADD notification, we can pass bus safely, and without
considering about cleanup PRT and OSC setting.
--
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
