[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <55541F17.5060005@linaro.org>
Date: Thu, 14 May 2015 12:05:43 +0800
From: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>
To: Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@...ux.intel.com>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
Yijing Wang <wangyijing@...wei.com>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
CC: Lv Zheng <lv.zheng@...el.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
"x86 @ kernel . org" <x86@...nel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 5/7] PCI/ACPI: Consolidate common PCI host bridge code
into ACPI core
On 2015年05月14日 09:09, Jiang Liu wrote:
> On 2015/5/13 21:25, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>> On 2015年05月13日 20:24, Jiang Liu wrote:
>>> On 2015/5/13 17:29, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>>>> Hi Jiang,
>>>>
>>>> On 2015年05月05日 10:46, Jiang Liu wrote:
>>>>
>>>> struct pci_controller {
>>>> struct acpi_device *companion;
>>>> void *iommu;
>>>> int segment;
>>>> int node; /* nearest node with memory or
>>>> NUMA_NO_NODE for global allocation */
>>>>
>>>> void *platform_data;
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> except void *platform_data;
>>>>
>>>> On ARM64, the structure is almost the same, so how about
>>>> introduce
>>>>
>>>> struct pci_controller {
>>>> struct acpi_device *companion; /* ACPI companion device */
>>>> void *iommu; /* IOMMU private data */
>>>> int segment; /* PCI domain */
>>>> int node; /* NUMA node */
>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_IA64
>>>> void *platform_data;
>>>> #endif
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> in this file, then can be used for all architectures?
>>> Current mode is that architecture defines its own version of
>>> struct pci_controller. It would be better to keep this pattern.
>>
>> OK, thanks for the clarify :) So how about add my basic
>> PCI support patch for ARM64 on top of you patch set to fix
>> this problem?
>
> Sure, please send me the patches and I will send out v3 to
> cover your review comments.
OK, I need to rework my patches because my patch set is dependent
on top of another MMCFG refactor patch set [1], so I need to remove
MMCONFIG first then will speed up the upstream process of your patch
set, will send you the patches soon.
[1]: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/4/17/29
Thanks
Hanjun
--
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