[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9014a9e1-9545-4f3c-08c2-8e8eb4762101@codeaurora.org>
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 11:32:26 -0500
From: Sinan Kaya <okaya@...eaurora.org>
To: Gary R Hook <gary.hook@....com>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
timur@...eaurora.org
Cc: linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
"open list:AMD IOMMU (AMD-VI)" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 11/26] iommu/amd: deprecate pci_get_bus_and_slot()
On 1/4/2018 11:28 AM, Gary R Hook wrote:
> On 01/04/2018 06:25 AM, Sinan Kaya wrote:
>> On 12/19/2017 12:37 AM, Sinan Kaya wrote:
>>> pci_get_bus_and_slot() is restrictive such that it assumes domain=0 as
>>> where a PCI device is present. This restricts the device drivers to be
>>> reused for other domain numbers.
>>>
>>> Getting ready to remove pci_get_bus_and_slot() function in favor of
>>> pci_get_domain_bus_and_slot().
>>>
>>> Hard-code the domain number as 0 for the AMD IOMMU driver.
>
> <snip>
>
>>
>> Any comments from the IOMMU people?
>>
>
> pci_get_bus_and_slot() appears to (now) be a convenience function that wraps pci_get_domain_bus_and_slot() while using a 0 for the domain value. Exactly what you are doing here, albeit in a more overt way.
>
> How is this patch advantageous? Seems to me that if other domains need to be enabled, that driver could be changed if and when that requirement arises.
>
> But perhaps I'm missing a nuance here.
>
>
The benefit of the change was discussed here:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/12/19/349
I hope it helps.
--
Sinan Kaya
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists