[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56977E5B.7050309@synopsys.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 10:54:19 +0000
From: Joao Pinto <Joao.Pinto@...opsys.com>
To: Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@...opsys.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
CC: Joao Pinto <Joao.Pinto@...opsys.com>,
"helgaas@...nel.org" <helgaas@...nel.org>,
"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-snps-arc@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-snps-arc@...ts.infradead.org>,
"CARLOS.PALMINHA@...opsys.com" <CARLOS.PALMINHA@...opsys.com>,
"Alexey.Brodkin@...opsys.com" <Alexey.Brodkin@...opsys.com>,
"robh+dt@...nel.org" <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
"pawel.moll@....com" <pawel.moll@....com>,
"mark.rutland@....com" <mark.rutland@....com>,
"ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk" <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
"galak@...eaurora.org" <galak@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] PCI support added to ARC
Hi,
On 1/14/2016 10:51 AM, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> On Thursday 14 January 2016 04:12 PM, Joao Pinto wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 1/14/2016 10:22 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>> On Thursday 14 January 2016 05:26:58 Vineet Gupta wrote:
>>>>> +/*
>>>>> + * We don't have to worry about legacy ISA devices, so nothing to do here
>>>>> + */
>>>>> +resource_size_t pcibios_align_resource(void *data, const struct resource *res,
>>>>> + resource_size_t size, resource_size_t align)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + return res->start;
>>>>> +}
>>>> Doesn't this have to be EXPORT_SYMBOL_xxx as well given that the call
>>>> (setup-res.c) can build as module ?
>>> I only see a caller in drivers/pci/setup-res.c, and that is never part of a
>>> loadable module.
>>>
>>>>> +
>>>>> +void pcibios_fixup_bus(struct pci_bus *bus)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(pcibios_fixup_bus);
>>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL ?
>>>>
>>>> As a seperate enhancement, it would be nicer if these 2 functions are defined weak
>>>> in common code. That would make basic PCI support almost arch independent !
>>> I agree, that would be ideal. An easy way to do this would be to add
>>> them as __weak functions in drivers/pci/, similar to how we handle
>>> a lot of the other pcibios_* functions.
>>>
>>> A somewhat nicer method would be to have callback pointers in struct
>>> pci_host_bridge, and call those when they are non-NULL so we can
>>> remove the global pcibios_* functions from the API. That would also
>>> bring us a big step closer to having PCI support itself as a loadable
>>> module, and it would better reflect that those functions are really
>>> host bridge specific rather than architecture specific. When you use
>>> the same host bridge on multiple architectures, you typically have
>>> the same requirements for hacks in there, but each architectures may
>>> need to support multiple host bridges with different requirements.
>> Since we will be constantly improving the driver and the core itself, I suggest
>> that this functions be made __weak and in an update we can turn it struct
>> pointers just like Arnd suggested. Is this good for you?
>
> There is no point in making it weak, w/o a fallback version in generic code. For
> this series, I suggest you just remove the straggler EXPORT_SYMBOL and respin.
>
> And then as a follow up to make them weak (and hence eliminate the scattered
> definitions all over). And then add as callbacks as suggested by Arnd.
>
Ok, I'll removed the EXPORT_SYMBOL and submit a new patch version.
Thanks for your comments!
> Thx,
> -Vineet
>
>>
>>> Arnd
>>>
>> Thanks
>> Joao
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists