On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 10:29 AM, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'd prefer a design where the PCI core provides an interface that
>>>> means "call this function for every host bridge we know about now
>>>> *and* for every one that's added in the future."
>>>
>>> yes, that is the point to add pci_root_bridge_bus_type. We can register
>>> bus notifier on that.
>>
>> I guess I missed your point. In the patch below (20/29 from your
>> series), you're still iterating through all the host bridges, so there
>> would have to be something else to handle hot-added host bridges.
>>
>> Are you saying you plan future patches to change this again to
>> something using a bus notifier?
>>
>> --- a/arch/sparc/kernel/pci.c
>> +++ b/arch/sparc/kernel/pci.c
>> @@ -997,11 +997,13 @@ static void __devinit pci_bus_slot_names(struct
>> device_node *node,
>>
>> static int __init of_pci_slot_init(void)
>> {
>> - struct pci_bus *pbus = NULL;
>> + struct pci_host_bridge *host_bridge = NULL;
>> + struct pci_bus *pbus;
>>
>> - while ((pbus = pci_find_next_bus(pbus)) != NULL) {
>> + for_each_pci_host_bridge(host_bridge) {
>> struct device_node *node;
>>
>> + pbus = hot_bridge->bus;
>> if (pbus->self) {
>> /* PCI->PCI bridge */
>> node = pbus->self->dev.of_node;
>
> that is for initial booting path.
>
> for hot add/remove notifier add need to be done case by case.
Can initial boot be done the same as hot-add? If we add interfaces
like for_each_pci_host_bridge(), people will just copy that for use at
run-time. So it would be better to have the same interfaces for use
at boot-time and at hot add-time.
--
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
