[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAE9FiQVgDQO0ZUbYr_KC2byM6J+Y_RUT=Xpcf-Atay7_tgOFTg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 12:28:26 -0700
From: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
Cc: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, x86 <x86@...nel.org>,
Dominik Brodowski <linux@...inikbrodowski.net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v11 04/30] PCI: Add busn_res into struct pci_bus.
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 8:40 AM, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com> wrote:
>>> bridge's Subordinate Bus Number in config space == bus->subordinate ==
>>> bus->busn_res.end (correct me if I'm wrong). I don't like the
>>> redundancy in this case.
>>
>> there are about 70 bus->subordinate reference and 40 bus->secondary reference.
>>
>> could try to update them in following patch set.
>
> If you're proposing this:
> 1. add bus->busn_res
> 2. remove bus->subordinate and bus->secondary
> I fully support that, and I'd like to merge both pieces at the same
> time (different patches is fine; I just want to make sure both pieces
> actually happen).
yes. Can you consider applying "removing bus->subordinate" patch set
to be applied after:
for-pci-busn-alloc
for-pci-root-bus-hotplug
for-pci-for-each-res-addon
for-pci-res-alloc
otherwise there would be some extra rebase work for last three patch set.
Yinghai
--
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