On Tuesday 18 February 2014 17:28:14 Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 02:03:26PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Friday 14 February 2014 22:00:47 Liviu Dudau wrote: > > > > Can anyone with more experience on the subject than me (Bjorn, > > Russell, Jason, ...) think of a reason why we would not want to > > just use a new domain for every host bridge we find? > > With ACPI on x86 and ia64, we currently use _SEG directly as the Linux > PCI domain. Are you proposing that we make the Linux PCI domain > independent of _SEG? I don't think we should change anything for ACPI. The point is that we don't currently have the equivalent of _SEG for DT probing. The best two options we have are: a) introduce a 'pci-segment' property with the same meaning as _SEG on ACPI, and use that as the domain number b) don't introduce the segment concept on DT but just give each host bridge its own domain. The second one seems a little easier to implement, and I don't see what _SEG is used for other than to avoid having domains when you don't need them. Is there more to it that I'm missing? > It will look sort of funny to have things like this: > > ACPI: PCI Root Bridge [L000] (_SEG 0 domain 0000 [bus 00-1b]) > ACPI: PCI Root Bridge [L001] (_SEG 0 domain 0001 [bus 1c-37]) > ACPI: PCI Root Bridge [L002] (_SEG 0 domain 0002 [bus 38-53]) > > where the firmware had _SEG==0 for all the bridges and assigned > non-overlapping bus number ranges, but since nothing in PCI really > depends on the domain, I guess it should work. I would expect that with DT, this would look like Root bridge 0: domain 0 [bus 0-1b] Root bridge 1: domain 1 [bus 0-1b] Root bridge 2: domain 2 [bus 0-1b] Since you wouldn't have a reason to use a bus range starting at a nonzero number. Arnd -- 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
