Re: [PATCH 06/10] x86/PCI: Enable scanning of all pci functions

[Jeremy Fitzhardinge]

Jesse Barnes wrote:
> On Tue, 12 May 2009 14:48:07 -0700
> Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>   
> > From: Alex Nixon <alex.nixon@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Xen may want to enable scanning of all pci functions - if for example
> > the device at function 0 is not passed through to the guest, but the
> > device at function 1 is.
> >
> > [Impact: allow passthrough of just some PCI functions.]
> > Signed-off-by: Alex Nixon <alex.nixon@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Reviewed-by: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Reviewed-by: Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  arch/x86/include/asm/pci.h |    8 +++++++-
> >  arch/x86/pci/common.c      |    1 +
> >  2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/pci.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/pci.h
> > index b51a1e8..092706e 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/pci.h
> > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/pci.h
> > @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ struct pci_sysdata {
> >  extern int pci_routeirq;
> >  extern int noioapicquirk;
> >  extern int noioapicreroute;
> > +extern int pci_scan_all_fns;
> >  
> >  /* scan a bus after allocating a pci_sysdata for it */
> >  extern struct pci_bus *pci_scan_bus_on_node(int busno, struct
> > pci_ops *ops, @@ -48,7 +49,11 @@ extern unsigned int
> > pcibios_assign_all_busses(void); #else
> >  #define pcibios_assign_all_busses()	0
> >  #endif
> > -#define pcibios_scan_all_fns(a, b)	0
> > +
> > +static inline int pcibios_scan_all_fns(struct pci_bus *bus, int
> > devfn) +{
> > +	return pci_scan_all_fns;
> > +}
> >  
> >  extern unsigned long pci_mem_start;
> >  #define PCIBIOS_MIN_IO		0x1000
> > @@ -130,6 +135,7 @@ extern void pci_iommu_alloc(void);
> >  
> >  /* generic pci stuff */
> >  #include <asm-generic/pci.h>
> > +#undef pcibios_scan_all_fns
> >     
>
> This is a little gross... But then I don't see any places where it's
> actually defined to something true either.

I've got some code to set it in a series I haven't posted yet.

>   Maybe it should be a weak
> function or a new HAVE_FOO define instead.
>   

I'd probably go the weak function path if I were to do either of those, 
but do you think it would be significantly better?

   J

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/