On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 09:30:47AM +0100, Grant Likely wrote: >On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 3:46 AM, Wei Yang <weiyang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 07:26:27PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote: >>>On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 2:56 AM, Wei Yang <weiyang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> Currently, powernv platform is not aware of VFs. This means no dev-node >>>> represents a VF. Also, VF PCI device is created when PF driver want to enable >>>> it. This leads to the pdn->pdev and pdn->pe_number an invalid value. >>>> >>>> This patch create/release dev-node for VF and fixs this when a VF's pci_dev >>>> is created. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Wei Yang <weiyang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> >>>I don't think this is the right way to handle this. Unless it is a >>>fixup to a buggy devicetree provided by firmware, I don't want to see >>>any code modifying the devicetree to describe stuff that is able to be >>>directly enumerated. Really the pci code should handle the lack of a >>>device_node gracefully. If it cannot then it should be fixed. >> >> Grant, >> >> Glad to see your comment. >> >> I will fix this in the firmware. > >That's not really what I meant. The kernel should be able to deal with >virtual functions even if firmware doesn't know how, and the kernel >should not require modifying the device tree to support them. > >I'm saying fix the kernel so that a device node is not necessary for >virtual functions. oh, sorry for my poor understanding. Let me do some investigation to see whether it is fine to get rid of device node for vfs. > >g. -- Richard Yang Help you, Help me -- 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
