----- Original Message ----- From: "Jun Sun" <jsun@mvista.com> To: "Bradley D. LaRonde" <brad@ltc.com> Cc: <linux-mips@oss.sgi.com>; <linux-mips-kernel@lists.sourceforge.net> Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 5:38 PM Subject: [Linux-mips-kernel]Re: PATCH: pci_auto bridge support > "Bradley D. LaRonde" wrote: > > > > I considered that, but since only this small chuck of run-once surrogate > > bios autoconfig code needs to know, I figured better keep it separate. > > > > I would vote to put it inside the hose structure: > > . It makes a workaround look like a real fix. :-) > > . In other implementations of pci_auto, hose is the private sys data of a pci > dev. Having a bus number inside is very useful (e.g., pci_ops can tell whether > it is type0 of type1 configuration based on the bus number rather than a shaky > NULL parent bus pointer). In the future, all pci_auto should be combined into > the pci driver. So that is probably the right direction to go. > > I think hose may evolve to be the data structure that represents the topology > of PCI buses. It should have more uses in the future (e.g., the standard IRQ > routing across PCI-PCI bridges). Isn't the bus topology already adequately represented in the pci_dev and pci_channel structures? I look at the pci autoconfig stuff as a bios replacement. The fact that we can use some of the same structures and functions to help us implement it is a bonus, but not a mandate to mess with the existing model. Isn't Linux already handling PCI-PCI bridges and multiple PCI channles fine already, or has our autoconfig code exposed some existing non-arch-specific weakness? Regards, Brad
