[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210506222530.GA1441653@bjorn-Precision-5520>
Date: Thu, 6 May 2021 17:25:30 -0500
From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
To: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com>,
Gregory Clement <gregory.clement@...tlin.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
"K. Y. Srinivasan" <kys@...rosoft.com>,
Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@...rosoft.com>,
Wei Liu <wei.liu@...nel.org>,
Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Jon Derrick <jonathan.derrick@...el.com>,
Sunil Muthuswamy <sunilmut@...rosoft.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 6/7] PCI: arm64: Allow pci_config_window::parent to be
NULL
Make your subject something like this so it matches previous practice:
arm64: PCI: ...
The "::" notation probably comes from C++, but doesn't really apply in
C. In C, we would say "cfg.parent" or "cfg->parent".
But pci_config_window and cfg->parent are probably too low-level for
the subject anyway. Seems like it should mention Hyper-V, for
instance.
On Mon, May 03, 2021 at 10:46:34PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> This is purely a hack, for ARM64 Hyper-V guest, there is no
> corresponding ACPI device for the root bridge, so the best we can
> provide is an all-zeroed pci_config_window, and in this case make
> pcibios_root_bridge_prepare() act as the ACPI device is NULL.
Why is there no ACPI device? Is this a needless arch dependency? Or
is this related to using DT instead of ACPI?
The cover letter hints that this might be related to
PCI_DOMAINS_GENERIC=y, but that doesn't sound like a very convincing
reason (and the cover letter can provide an overview, but the commit
logs of individual patches shouldn't assume knowledge of the cover
letter).
> Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
> ---
> arch/arm64/kernel/pci.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/pci.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/pci.c
> index e9a6eeb6a694..f159df903ccb 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/pci.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/pci.c
> @@ -83,7 +83,7 @@ int pcibios_root_bridge_prepare(struct pci_host_bridge *bridge)
> {
> if (!acpi_disabled) {
> struct pci_config_window *cfg = bridge->bus->sysdata;
> - struct acpi_device *adev = to_acpi_device(cfg->parent);
> + struct acpi_device *adev = cfg->parent ? to_acpi_device(cfg->parent) : NULL;
> struct device *bus_dev = &bridge->bus->dev;
>
> ACPI_COMPANION_SET(&bridge->dev, adev);
> --
> 2.30.2
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists