[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A413C66.5010306@goop.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:34:46 -0700
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
CC: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Alex Chiang <achiang@...com>, jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, Kyle McMartin <kyle@...artin.ca>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Yoshinori Sato <ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp>,
Jeff Dike <jdike@...toit.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@...assic.park.msu.ru>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI: remove pcibios_scan_all_fns()
On 06/23/09 12:08, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> I think simply materialising them, either the way the OF code does,
> or the way the IOV code does is the best route forwards.
>
On reflection, I think this will work. We have a Xen pci passthrough
driver which gets told about the passed-through devices via xenbus, and
does the appropriate setup. At first glance, there doesn't seem to be
any problem with that code just explicitly instantiate the devices at
the PCI level in the same way pci_scan_device does (ie,
alloc_pci_device, initalize the dev struct, pci_setup_device).
Is that what you mean?
IanC has looked at that code more closely, so perhaps he can confirm
that this will work on our side.
J
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists