Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 4:36 PM, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> From: Yongji Xie <elohimes@xxxxxxxxx>
>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/pci-ioda.c b/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/pci-ioda.c
>> index 6901a06da2f9..b724487cbd0f 100644
>> --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/pci-ioda.c
>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/pci-ioda.c
>> @@ -3287,6 +3287,11 @@ static void pnv_pci_setup_bridge(struct pci_bus *bus, unsigned long type)
>> }
>> }
>>
>> +static resource_size_t pnv_pci_default_alignment(struct pci_dev *pdev)
>> +{
>> + return PAGE_SIZE;
>> +}
>
> Is it necessary that pcibios_default_alignment() take a pci_dev
> pointer?
It's not necessary given the current implementation, obviously.
But it did strike me as a good idea to pass it in case we ever want to
do anything device specific in future.
> I'd like this better if it were:
>
> resource_size_t pcibios_default_alignment(void) { ... }
>
> because the last patch relies on the assumption that all resources of
> *all* devices will be realigned to the same alignment.
But I guess that precludes doing anything device specific, at least
without further changes. So in that case it would be better if the API
didn't include the pci_dev.
Hopefully Yongji can confirm that there were no plans to use the
pci_dev in future patches.
cheers
