On 2015/3/3 11:03, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 04:12:06PM +0800, Yijing Wang wrote:Now we have weak functions like pcibios_root_bridge_prepare() to setup pci host bridge, We could introduce pci_host_bridge_ops which contain host bridge specific ops to setup pci_host_bridge. Then host bridge driver could add pci_host_bridge_ops hooks intead of weak function to setup pci_host_bridge. This patch add following pci_host_bridge_ops hooks: pci_host_bridge_ops { /* set root bus speed, some platform need this like powerpc */ void (*phb_set_root_bus_speed)(struct pci_host_bridge *host); /* setup pci_host_bridge before pci_host_bridge be added to driver core */ int (*phb_prepare)(struct pci_host_bridge *host); /* platform specific of scan hook to scan pci device */ void (*phb_of_scan_bus)(struct pci_host_bridge *); } We could easily extend it to support different host bridge specific operations. Signed-off-by: Yijing Wang <wangyijing@xxxxxxxxxx> ...@@ -2050,10 +2052,13 @@ static struct pci_bus *__pci_scan_root_bus( pci_bus_insert_busn_res(b, b->number, 255); } - max = pci_scan_child_bus(b); - - if (!found) - pci_bus_update_busn_res_end(b, max); + if (host->ops && host->ops->phb_of_scan_bus) { + host->ops->phb_of_scan_bus(host);The important thing here is not the use of OF (Open Firmware/Device Tree), is it? Why would we want "_of_" in the function name? I assume the intent is that this host bridge op performs the same function as pci_scan_child_bus(), so I think the op should be called "scan_bus".
Yes, because now only OF code need the private scan_child_bus, so I named it phb_of_scan_bus(). I agree that rename it to scan_bus.
+ } else { + max = pci_scan_child_bus(b); + if (!found) + pci_bus_update_busn_res_end(b, max); + } return b; }.
-- Thanks! Yijing -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-m68k" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
