[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAE9FiQVYvmRr5oGLfLCPFPV_G_r-fqG9GZaK_wxNW8aO_oyuRA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 10:59:11 -0800
From: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
Cc: Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@...wei.com>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...hat.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Taku Izumi <izumi.taku@...fujitsu.com>,
Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@...com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/22] PCI: Iterate pci host bridge instead of pci root bus
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com> wrote:
> I think you're missing the point.
>
> Search the tree for uses of "for_each_pci_dev()." Almost every
> occurrence is a bug because that code doesn't work correctly for
> hot-added devices. That code gets run for devices that are present at
> boot, but not for devices hot-added later.
>
> You're proposing to add "for_each_pci_host_bridge()." That will have
> the exact same problem as for_each_pci_dev() already does. Code that
> uses it will work for host bridges present at boot, but not for
> bridges hot-added later.
>
> Why would we want to add an interface when every use of that interface
> will be a design bug? I think we should fix the existing users of
> pci_root_buses by changing their designs so they will work correctly
> with host bridge hotplug.
I'm a little confused about what you want.
In boot stage using for_each_pci_host_bridge or pci_root_buses is fine.
For those cases that it should support host-bridge by nature.
there are two solutions:
1. use for_each_pci_host_bridge, and it is hotplug-safe.
and make sgi_hotplug to use acpi_pci_driver interface.
and acpi_pci_root_add() will call .add in the acpi_pci_driver.
2. make them all to be built-in, and those acpi_pci_driver should be registered
much early before acpi_pci_root_add is called.
then we don't need to call for_each_host_bridge for it.
So difference between them:
1. still keep the module support, and register acpi_pci_driver later.
2. built-in support only, and need to register acpi_pci_driver early.
Please let me which one you like.
Thanks
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