On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> I'm really sorry that it's taken me so long to get to these. >> >> I applied these to my pci/yinghai-survey-resources branch. I >> re-ordered the last two and reworked some of the changelogs. > > To be clear about this, the pci/yinghai-survey-resources branch I > mentioned is a staging branch that just gets build test coverage. I > don't plan to actually merge this or put it into -next until the > questions below are resolved. > > My inclination, until I'm persuaded otherwise, is to wait for patches > that preserve the similarities among these architectures. I don't know, that could be separated patcheset after we conclude pci root bus hotplug support. > >> In general these look good. My main concern is that they only touch >> x86, without touching the similar code in frv, microblaze, mn10300, >> and powerpc. >> >> This code (pcibios_resource_survey(), pcibios_assign_resources(), >> pcibios_allocate_resources(), pcibios_allocate_bus_resources()) was >> obviously copied from x86 originally, and I'd like to preserve the >> similarity between them. It would be even better to refactor it so >> it's actually *shared*, but I don't think that's a requirement right >> now. yes, should be moved to drivers/pci >> >> If we allow it to diverge now, it will make it harder to refactor and >> harder to notice when bug fixes should be applied to all of them. For >> example, looking at pcibios_allocate_resources(), commit 575939cf5 >> added some SR-IOV support to x86. Should similar code be added for >> frv, microblaze, mn10300, and powerpc? should be treated the same. >> >> Anybody else have thoughts on this? >> >> Bjorn -- 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
