[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B4D28AF.1060506@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 17:58:07 -0800
From: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
To: Kenji Kaneshige <kaneshige.kenji@...fujitsu.com>
CC: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@...assic.park.msu.ru>,
Alex Chiang <achiang@...com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@...com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/14] pci: introduce pci_assign_unassigned_bridge_resources
On 01/12/2010 04:50 PM, Kenji Kaneshige wrote:
> Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> for pciehp to use it later
>>
>> pci_setup_bridge() will not check enabled for the slot bridge, otherwise
>> update res is not updated to bridge BAR. that is bridge is enabled already for
>> port service.
>>
>> -v2: update it with resource_list_x
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
...
>> +
>> +void pci_assign_unassigned_bridge_resources(struct pci_dev *bridge)
>> +{
>> + struct pci_bus *bus;
>> + struct pci_bus *parent = bridge->subordinate;
>> + int retval;
>> +
>> + pci_bus_size_bridges(parent);
>> + pci_clear_master(bridge);
>
> I have a concern about clearing bus master enable bit here, though
> I'm not sure about it. I'm wondering if clearing bus master enable
> bit might have some bad effect for the port services to work. For
> example, does MSI interrupt work without enabling bus mastering?
but we set that pci_set_master right away after we assign the new resource
>
>
>> + __pci_bridge_assign_resources(bridge, NULL);
>> + retval = pci_reenable_device(bridge);
>> + pci_set_master(bridge);
>> + pci_enable_bridges(parent);
YH
--
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