On Thursday 06 November 2014 16:08:57 Lucas Stach wrote: > Am Dienstag, den 04.11.2014, 13:07 +0100 schrieb Arnd Bergmann: > > On Tuesday 04 November 2014 12:00:52 Liviu Dudau wrote: > > > > > > While the description is potentially correct, what it fails to explain is that the > > > choice of using the property or generating an unstable (across boots) unique > > > number is actually the choice of the host bridge driver at the moment. I know that > > > my earlier implementations were defaulting to the automatic numbering, but that has > > > been dropped from the final series as Rob Herring was objecting to it. > > > > > > There is still scope to adopt a wide policy here, but for now it should say something > > > to the tune: > > > > > > If present this property assigns a fixed PCI domain number to a host bridge, > > > otherwise an unstable (across boots) unique number will be assigned. > > > If you decide to use the property to assign a fixed PCI domain number to a host > > > bridge you have to ensure that all the host bridge drivers present in the system > > > follow the same policy. Otherwise, potentially conflicting domain numbers > > > may be assigned to root busses behind different host bridges. > > > > But with the latest change to the domain handling, all drivers would implement > > this. I would just mention that Linux kernels older than 3.19 are probably > > going to ignore this property. > > > Hm, I don't think we should stick those things into the binding docs, as > those should not be Linux specific. IMHO the time when the parsing of a > property gets implemented is a implementation detail that has nothing to > do with the binding. Besides vendors always screw with this timeframes > by doing backports. Well, unlike most properties, this one is explicitly Linux-specific, at least that is what the name implies. 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