[lkml]   [2013]   [Jan]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/8] PCI, ACPI, x86: Reserve fw allocated resource for hot-add root bus
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 4:49 PM, Bjorn Helgaas <> wrote:
> [+cc David, Michal, Koichi, Ben, Paul]
> On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 12:15 AM, Yinghai Lu <> wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 9:39 PM, Yinghai Lu <> wrote:
>>> For root bus hot add, fw could assign some resource for the devices for
>>> that root bus before notifying os via acpi, we should check and use those
>>> resources at first just like we do for booting path.
>>> At first, we need to refactor x86 pci pcibios_allocate related functions
>>> for booting path to take bus as parameter.
>>> After that, we could use the survey function for hot add root bus.
>>> based on pci/yinghai-for-pci-root-bus-hotplug
>>> could get from
>>> git:// for-pci-survey-resources
>>> Yinghai Lu (8):
>>> PCI, x86: Separate out pcibios_allocate_bridge_resources()
>>> PCI, x86: Separate out pcibios_allocate_dev_resources()
>>> PCI, x86: Let pcibios_allocate_bus_resources() take bus instead
>>> PCI, x86: Separate out rom resource claim
>>> PCI, x86: Add pcibios_fw_addr_done
>>> PCI, x86: Remove __init for hw/fw allocated functions
>>> PCI, x86: Claim FW allocated resources in hot add path.
>>> PCI, ACPI: reserve fw allocated resource for hot added root bus
>>> arch/x86/pci/i386.c | 185 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
>>> drivers/acpi/pci_root.c | 4 +-
>>> drivers/pci/bus.c | 2 +
>>> include/linux/pci.h | 1 +
>>> 4 files changed, 127 insertions(+), 65 deletions(-)
>> Bjorn,
>> Can you queue those 8 patches for v3.9 in pci tree?
>> So I could resend out other pci root hotplug patches.
> I'm really sorry that it's taken me so long to get to these.
> I applied these to my pci/yinghai-survey-resources branch. I
> re-ordered the last two and reworked some of the changelogs.

To be clear about this, the pci/yinghai-survey-resources branch I
mentioned is a staging branch that just gets build test coverage. I
don't plan to actually merge this or put it into -next until the
questions below are resolved.

My inclination, until I'm persuaded otherwise, is to wait for patches
that preserve the similarities among these architectures.

> In general these look good. My main concern is that they only touch
> x86, without touching the similar code in frv, microblaze, mn10300,
> and powerpc.
> This code (pcibios_resource_survey(), pcibios_assign_resources(),
> pcibios_allocate_resources(), pcibios_allocate_bus_resources()) was
> obviously copied from x86 originally, and I'd like to preserve the
> similarity between them. It would be even better to refactor it so
> it's actually *shared*, but I don't think that's a requirement right
> now.
> If we allow it to diverge now, it will make it harder to refactor and
> harder to notice when bug fixes should be applied to all of them. For
> example, looking at pcibios_allocate_resources(), commit 575939cf5
> added some SR-IOV support to x86. Should similar code be added for
> frv, microblaze, mn10300, and powerpc?
> Anybody else have thoughts on this?
> Bjorn

 \ /
  Last update: 2013-01-08 19:41    [W:0.041 / U:1.908 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site