On Wed, 2012-03-14 at 09:53 +0800, Gavin Shan wrote:
> > +#if defined(CONFIG_EEH)
> > > +static inline struct eeh_dev *of_node_to_eeh_dev(struct device_node *dn)
> > > +{
> > > + return dn->edev;
> > > +}
> > > +#endif
> >
> > Ben, What is this? I don't want the eeh_dev pointer in struct device_node. Up to
> > now we've avoided putting any reverse references into device_nodes. For everything
> > else we use a reverse lookup, particularly for devices, to avoid growing the
> > device_node for each new type of lookup.
> >
>
> It's used to trace the EEH device. When EEH (Enhanced Error Hanlding) is enabled,
> EEH device will be created against PCI sensitive OF node to trace the EEH state
> accordingly. Since you don't want see this in struct device_node, we have to change
> struct eeh_dev for a little bit to so that all struct eeh_dev instances will form
> a global list and we can search eeh_dev according to the given device_node through
> the global list.
>
> I don't know the policy or rule here for much. I think we can have 2 options.
>
> 1. Keep the code as being, and fix it later.
> 2. Fix it now.
My bad, it's a mis-review, I thought it was still in pci_dn, I din't
catch Gavin moving it to device-node.
Yes, Gavin, we need to do something else, a chained list we walk or
something like that. For the "fast path" which is when we have a pci_dev
around, we can either add it to dev_archdata or hijack the pci-dev
platform_data (I don't think anything uses it, Grant, do you know of
anything ?)
The patches are already in -next and I won't rebase, so we need to fix
it on top of the existing patches. Gavin, can you make a patch that puts
it back into pci_dn to begin with, then we can contemplate what better
long term solution we have ?
Cheers,
Ben.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
