[lkml]   [2013]   [Jan]   [9]   [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 Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Yinghai Lu <> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Bjorn Helgaas <> 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.

The main reason I review patches before merging them is to identify
issues that we can fix before they affect everybody. It makes my life
a lot easier if I don't have to keep track of pending unaddressed
review comments. Is there an advantage to waiting and doing this work

>>> 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

 \ /
  Last update: 2013-01-09 19:01    [W:0.059 / U:3.144 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site