On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 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.
still need to check them case by case. some function may be too early
to be called in work_fn in notifier. that need to find out when to get
that bus notifier get
register.
I have one draft patch that will delay bridge enabling to BUS_ADD for
pci bridge...
that will need to get that register rather later otherwise that bridge
can not be enabled because resources are not reserved/allocated for
initial booting path.
please refer to the attached patch. you should notice that fs_initcall
is used for registration until boot path already have that pci bridges
before.
+static struct notifier_block pci_hp_nb = {
+ .notifier_call = &pci_hp_notifier,
+};
+
+static int __init pci_hp_init(void)
+{
+ return bus_register_notifier(&pci_bus_type, &pci_hp_nb);
+}
+
+fs_initcall(pci_hp_init);
Also using that for_each_pci_host_bridge in run-time is still safe.
-Yinghai
Attachment:
pci_bridge_notifcation_1.patch
Description: Binary data
