Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Tue, 8 Jan 2013 10:27:25 -0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/8] PCI, ACPI, x86: Reserve fw allocated resource for hot-add root bus | From | Yinghai Lu <> |
| |
On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com> wrote: >> 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.
I don't know, that could be separated patcheset after we conclude pci root bus hotplug support.
> >> 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.
yes, should be moved to drivers/pci
>> >> 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?
should be treated the same.
>> >> Anybody else have thoughts on this? >> >> Bjorn
|  |