linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 6/9] pci: Introduce a domain number for pci_host

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAErSpo5ZNCY31NztT0cLFbRVsBZqMsZ0LbTFNOTQCZUU3F7qJA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 10 Jul 2014 16:36:10 -0600
From:	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
To:	Liviu Dudau <Liviu.Dudau@....com>
Cc:	linux-pci <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@....com>,
	Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@....com>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	linaro-kernel <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
	Tanmay Inamdar <tinamdar@....com>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
	Sinan Kaya <okaya@...eaurora.org>,
	Jingoo Han <jg1.han@...sung.com>,
	Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@...sung.com>,
	Suravee Suthikulanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@....com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Device Tree ML <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	LAKML <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 6/9] pci: Introduce a domain number for pci_host_bridge.

On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 3:47 AM, Liviu Dudau <Liviu.Dudau@....com> wrote:

> I don't see a way out of adding new PCI interfaces if we want to have support in
> the PCI framework for unifying existing architectures. Of course, there is the painful
> alternative of changing the existing APIs and fixing arches in one go, but like you've
> said is going to be messy. I don't think I (or the people and companies wanting PCIe
> on arm64) should cop out and pick a quick fix that adds sysdata structure into arm64
> just to avoid new APIs, as this is not going to help anyone in long term. What I can
> do is to create a set of parallel APIs for pci_{scan,create}_root_bus() that take
> a pci_host_bridge pointer and start converting architectures one by one to that API
> while deprecating the existing one. That way we can add arm64 easily as it would be
> the first architecture to use new code without breaking things *and* we provide a
> migration path.

A lot of the v7 discussion was about pci_register_io_range().  I
apologize, because I think I really derailed things there and it was
unwarranted.  Arnd was right that migrating other arches should be a
separate effort.  I *think* I was probably thinking about the proposal
of adding pci_create_root_bus_in_domain(), and my reservations about
that got transferred to the pci_register_io_range() discussion.  In
any case, I'm completely fine with pci_register_io_range() now.

Most of the rest of the v7 discussion was about "Introduce a domain
number for pci_host_bridge."  I think we should add arm64 using the
existing pci_scan_root_bus() and keep the domain number in the arm64
sysdata structure like every other arch does.  Isn't that feasible?
We can worry about domain unification later.

I haven't followed closely enough to know what other objections people had.

Bjorn
--
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/