On Thu, 2019-06-20 at 18:13 +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 10:23:56AM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > Instead of the simpler > > > > pci_bus_size_bridges(bus); > > pci_bus_assign_resources(bus); > > > > Use pci_assign_unassigned_root_bus_resources(). This should have no effect > > as long as we are reassigning everything. Once we start honoring FW > > resource allocations, this will bring up the "reallocation" feature > > which can help making room for SR-IOV when necessary. > > I would like to add more details on why we want to make this change, > I will update the log when we merge it, it is a bit too late for v5.3, > even if in theory no functional change is intended. Ok. The why is that a subsequent patch will turn the code into if (claim) claim() pci_assign_unassigned* And I wanted the patch replacing the existing 2 calls with the above separate and bisectable in case we missed some odd effect of the change. Cheers, Ben. > > > Signed-off-by: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > arch/arm64/kernel/pci.c | 3 +-- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/pci.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/pci.c > > index bb85e2f4603f..1419b1b4e9b9 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/pci.c > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/pci.c > > @@ -193,8 +193,7 @@ struct pci_bus *pci_acpi_scan_root(struct acpi_pci_root *root) > > if (!bus) > > return NULL; > > > > - pci_bus_size_bridges(bus); > > - pci_bus_assign_resources(bus); > > + pci_assign_unassigned_root_bus_resources(bus); > > These hunks should be identical, minus the additional resource size > handling and realloc policy (which are *missing* features in current > code). We must document this change in the log. > > Acked-by: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@xxxxxxx> > > > list_for_each_entry(child, &bus->children, node) > > pcie_bus_configure_settings(child); > > -- > > 2.17.1 > >
