[+cc Yinghai]
On Wed, 2013-01-09 at 13:44 -0700, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> [+cc Myron]
>
> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 1:19 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 10, 2013 12:58:25 AM Jiang Liu wrote:
> >> Hi Rafael,
> >> Thanks for your great efforts to review the patch.
> >>
> >> On 01/09/2013 08:01 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > On Wednesday, January 09, 2013 12:52:22 AM Jiang Liu wrote:
> >> snip
> >> >>
> >> >> +static void acpi_pci_slot_notify_add(struct pci_dev *dev)
> >> >> +{
> >> >> + acpi_handle handle;
> >> >> + struct callback_args context;
> >> >> +
> >> >> + if (!dev->subordinate)
> >> >> + return;
> >> >> +
> >> >> + mutex_lock(&slot_list_lock);
> >> >> + handle = DEVICE_ACPI_HANDLE(&dev->dev);
> >> >> + context.root_handle = acpi_find_root_bridge_handle(dev);
> >> >
> >> > There's a patch under discussion that removes this function.
> >> >
> >> > Isn't there any other way to do this?
> >> I will try to find a way to get rid of calling acpi_find_root_bridge_handle,
> >> and it seems doable.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >> + if (handle && context.root_handle) {
> >> >> + context.pci_bus = dev->subordinate;
> >> >> + context.user_function = register_slot;
> >> >> + acpi_walk_namespace(ACPI_TYPE_DEVICE, handle, (u32)1,
> >> >
> >> > You can just pass 1 here I think. Does the compiler complain?
> >> Thanks for reminder, the (u32) is unnecessary.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >> + register_slot, NULL, &context, NULL);
> >> >> + }
> >> >> + mutex_unlock(&slot_list_lock);
> >> >> +}
> >> >> +
> >> >> +static void acpi_pci_slot_notify_del(struct pci_dev *dev)
> >> >> +{
> >> >> + struct acpi_pci_slot *slot, *tmp;
> >> >> + struct pci_bus *bus = dev->subordinate;
> >> >> +
> >> >> + if (!bus)
> >> >> + return;
> >> >> +
> >> >> + mutex_lock(&slot_list_lock);
> >> >> + list_for_each_entry_safe(slot, tmp, &slot_list, list)
> >> >> + if (slot->pci_slot && slot->pci_slot->bus == bus) {
> >> >> + list_del(&slot->list);
> >> >> + pci_destroy_slot(slot->pci_slot);
> >> >> + put_device(&bus->dev);
> >> >> + kfree(slot);
> >> >> + }
> >> >> + mutex_unlock(&slot_list_lock);
> >> >> +}
> >> >> +
> >> >> +static int acpi_pci_slot_notify_fn(struct notifier_block *nb,
> >> >> + unsigned long event, void *data)
> >> >> +{
> >> >> + struct device *dev = data;
> >> >> +
> >> >> + switch (event) {
> >> >> + case BUS_NOTIFY_ADD_DEVICE:
> >> >> + acpi_pci_slot_notify_add(to_pci_dev(dev));
> >> >> + break;
> >> >
> >> > Do I think correctly that this is going to be called for every PCI device
> >> > added to the system, even if it's not a bridge?
> >> You are right. Function acpi_pci_slot_notify_add() and acpi_pci_slot_notify_del()
> >> will check whether it's a bridge. If preferred, I will move the check up into
> >> acpi_pci_slot_notify_fn().
> >>
> >> >
> >> >> + case BUS_NOTIFY_DEL_DEVICE:
> >> >> + acpi_pci_slot_notify_del(to_pci_dev(dev));
> >> >> + break;
> >> >> + default:
> >> >> + return NOTIFY_DONE;
> >> >> + }
> >> >> +
> >> >> + return NOTIFY_OK;
> >> >> +}
> >> >> +
> >> >> +static struct notifier_block acpi_pci_slot_notifier = {
> >> >> + .notifier_call = &acpi_pci_slot_notify_fn,
> >> >> +};
> >> >> +
> >> >> static int __init
> >> >> acpi_pci_slot_init(void)
> >> >> {
> >> >> dmi_check_system(acpi_pci_slot_dmi_table);
> >> >> acpi_pci_register_driver(&acpi_pci_slot_driver);
> >> >> + bus_register_notifier(&pci_bus_type, &acpi_pci_slot_notifier);
> >> >
> >> > I wonder if/why this has to be so convoluted?
> >> >
> >> > We have found a PCI bridge in the ACPI namespace, so we've created a struct
> >> > acpi_device for it and we've walked the namespace below it already.
> >> >
> >> > Now we're creating a struct pci_dev for it and while registering it we're
> >> > going to walk the namespace below the bridge again to find and register its
> >> > slots and that is done indirectly from a bus type notifier.
> >> >
> >> > Why can't we enumerate the slots directly upfront?
> >> Do you mean to create the PCI slot devices when creating the ACPI devices?
> >> I think there are two factors prevent us from doing that.
> >> The first is that the ACPI pci_slot driver could be built as a module, so
> >> we can't call into it from the ACPI core.
> >
> > I didn't say about calling the pci_slot driver from the ACPI core, but about
> > enumerating slots in a way suitable for consumption by the pci_slot driver
> > when it's ready.
> >
> > That said I really don't see a value in having a modular pci_slot driver. It
> > is part of the hotplug infrastructure and should always be presend for this
> > reason, so we don't need to worry about the "pci_slot driver not present" case.
>
> I agree that there's no value in supporting CONFIG_ACPI_PCI_SLOT=m. I
> think Myron has some patches that remove that case.
>
> I'm not sure what the best way to merge them is. We have a bunch of
> stuff this cycle that touches both ACPI and PCI.
Rafael:
The series Bjorn mentions is at https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/12/7/11 It
converts both the "ACPI Hot Plug PCI Controller Driver ("acpiphp")" and
"ACPI PCI Slot Detection Driver ("pci_slot")" sub-drivers to built-in
drivers (i.e. no longer supported as modules).
Yinghai commented back - https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/12/7/29 - indicating
a possible issue with such but his response was too terse for me to get
anything from. Also, I've noticed that a couple of the distros, debian
being one, have made similar changes so I'm a little skeptical about
Yinghai's concerns.
Since you have similar thoughts - "I really don't see a value in having
a modular pci_slot driver" - can you foresee any issues with such?
Thanks,
Myron
>
> Bjorn
--
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
