On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 12:40:19AM +0800, Ram Pai wrote: > 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. hmm..ok. I realize the struct device of the host bridge exists and needs to be accessed, even though it is not a pci_device. So killing bus->bridge is not trivial. 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
