[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20130628095138.D5B7BE0090@blue.fi.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 12:51:38 +0300 (EEST)
From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
Cc: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
"Ronciak, John" <john.ronciak@...el.com>,
"Penner, Miles J" <miles.j.penner@...el.com>,
Bruce Allan <bruce.w.allan@...el.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] PCI: acpiphp: do not check for SLOT_ENABLED in
enable_device()
Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 10:22 AM, Mika Westerberg
> <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
> >
> > With Thunderbolt you can chain devices: connect a new devices to plugged
> > one. In this case the slot is already enabled, but we still want to look
> > for new devices behind it.
> >
> > We're going to reuse enable_device() for rescan for new devices on the
> > enabled slot. Let's push the check up by stack.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/pci/hotplug/acpiphp_glue.c | 5 ++---
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/pci/hotplug/acpiphp_glue.c b/drivers/pci/hotplug/acpiphp_glue.c
> > index 59df857..b983e29 100644
> > --- a/drivers/pci/hotplug/acpiphp_glue.c
> > +++ b/drivers/pci/hotplug/acpiphp_glue.c
> > @@ -688,9 +688,6 @@ static int __ref enable_device(struct acpiphp_slot *slot)
> > int num, max, pass;
> > LIST_HEAD(add_list);
> >
> > - if (slot->flags & SLOT_ENABLED)
> > - goto err_exit;
> > -
> > list_for_each_entry(func, &slot->funcs, sibling)
> > acpiphp_bus_add(func);
> >
> > @@ -1242,6 +1239,8 @@ int acpiphp_enable_slot(struct acpiphp_slot *slot)
> > goto err_exit;
> >
> > if (get_slot_status(slot) == ACPI_STA_ALL) {
> > + if (slot->flags & SLOT_ENABLED)
> > + goto err_exit;
>
> Why do we check for SLOT_ENABLED at all? I think we're handling a Bus
> Check notification, which means "re-enumerate on the device tree
> starting from the notification point." It doesn't say anything about
> skipping the re-enumeration if we find a device that's already
> enabled.
>
> It seems like we ought to just re-enumerate all the way down in case a
> device was added farther down in the tree (which is what it sounds
> like Thunderbolt is doing).
Currently (with patchset applied), we have two users of
acpiphp_enable_slot():
- /sys/bus/pci/slots/*/power
- ACPI_NOTIFY_BUS_CHECK in _handle_hotplug_event_func().
Both are not related to Thunderbolt.
Although, I think remove the check is good idea, I prefer to keep it
separate from Thunderbolt enabling patchset, since it will change sysfs
ABI a bit and can potentially affect othe ACPI PCI hotplug
implementations.
--
Kirill A. Shutemov
--
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