On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 10:41:39PM +0800, Jiang Liu wrote: > On 06/05/2012 02:35 PM, Ram Pai wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 10:20:51PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote: > >> On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 10:18 PM, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>> That's true, but I don't think it answers the question. If we have: > >>>> > >>>> pci_bus->bridge == pci_bus->self->dev > >>>> > >>>> why would we need both "self" and "bridge"? It would be interesting > >>>> to try to remove "bridge" and replace uses of it with "self->dev". > >>> > >>> then how about root bus? > >>> > >>> root bus ->self should be NULL. > >>> > >>> root bus ->bridge is to the hostbridge->dev. > > > > Yinghai, > > > > is there a reason why this can't be fixed in > > pci_create_root_bus() by having > > bus->self = bridge; /* 'bridge' is the pci_device of the corresponding host bridge */ > Hi Ram, > A host bridge has no associated pci_device because it's out of the > PCI domain. PCI domain only covers the hierarchy starting from the host bridge, > but doesn't include the host bridge itself. That makes it even easier to kill pci_bus->bridge. for non-root buses, we can access the bridge's device using bus->self->dev and for root bridges we can silently ignore the bridge's dev since we know that it does not exist; because pci_bus->self is null. No? RP -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
