[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAE9FiQUfHCC+3c+hOeOcpRWwedL02KKw0O2qNNLZMymUnwW5-g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 13:21:46 -0800
From: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Wei Yang <weiyang@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, TJ <linux@....tj>,
Yijing Wang <wangyijing@...wei.com>,
Khalid Aziz <khalid.aziz@...cle.com>,
"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 01/59] PCI: Add pci_find_root_bus_resource()
Hi Bjorn,
Thanks for taking time to look at those patches!
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 7:54 PM, Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 06:11:52PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> Add pci_find_root_bus_resource() to return root bus resource
>> for input resource.
>>
>> For sparc mem64 support, We need that host bridge window res:
>> 1. we need direct parent for request_resource_conflict() calling in
>> pci_register_legacy_regions().
>> 2. check if return is NULL to decide if region is valid or not.
>
> Whenever somebody proposes a new interface that's only required for
> one architecture, the obvious question is "what is unique about that
> architecture that makes the new interface necessary?"
Good point.
I was thinking to keep the current behavior in sparc64 arch,
as I don't want to break old setups.
Later we can try to make it more like arch.
>
> Neither this patch nor the follow-on patch that adds the use of
> pci_find_root_bus_resource() answers that question.
>
would be better to keep those two in same patch?
Thanks
Yinghai
Powered by blists - more mailing lists