[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B5390B7.5000801@kernel.org>
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 14:35:35 -0800
From: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
To: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>
CC: Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@...com>, Alex Chiang <achiang@...com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@...assic.park.msu.ru>,
Kenji Kaneshige <kaneshige.kenji@...fujitsu.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/11] pciehp: add support for bridge resource reallocation
On 01/17/2010 09:34 AM, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 16:14:31 -0700
> Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@...com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 2010-01-16 at 01:34 -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>> On 01/15/2010 08:59 PM, Alex Chiang wrote:
>>>> * Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>:
>>>>> From: Kenji Kaneshige <kaneshige.kenji@...fujitsu.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> With this patch, pciehp driver try to clear PCI bridge resources
>>>>> to parent bridge (root port or switch downstream port) of the
>>>>> slot
>>>>>
>>>>> so we can shrink pci bridge resource for those port
>>>>>
>>>>> This feature is enabled when 'pciehp_realloc' option is
>>>>> specified.
>>>>>
>>>>> -v2: make it could be appiled after Yinghai patchset that touch
>>>>> pci bridge resource also remove poweron check, because
>>>>> pci_bridge_release_res will check child at first
>>>>
>>>> Same comment as my earlier patch. Why not just make this the
>>>> default behavior, instead of introducing yet another command line
>>>> parameter for users to guess at?
>>>
>>> it will break Eric's setup/
>>
>> I think this is a clue that we don't understand the problem well
>> enough yet.
>>
>> I'm opposed to adding kernel parameters for this sort of thing. It is
>> unreasonable to expect users to figure out whether they need to use
>> this parameter or not.
>>
>> Special-case switches like this make it much harder to maintain the
>> code in the future.
>
> Agreed. Yinghai, what's wrong in the new reassignment code that
> causes Eric's setup to break? Can we just fix that instead and enable
> reallocation by default?
no.
Eric's setup is:
hot plug one addon card into one hotplug slots and new addon cards have more hot plug slots.
SLOTA will have SLOT B, SLOT C, and SLOT D as children. and not devices in SLOTB/C/D at first.
with the pciehp_realloc is specified, the SLOTA will not get any device assigned, and later
if put devices in SLOTB/SLOTC/SLOTD, will not get resource for those devices.
and we can not go above to update SLOT A, because: some devices on SLOTB could already have driver loaded.
if you don't like pciehp_realloc at this point, please only apply 1-8 and 11.
Thanks
Yinghai Lu
--
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