Re: [PATCH 3/4] PCI: restrict subordinate buses to those reachablevia host bridge

[Yinghai Lu]

On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> please check attached patch.
>
> It's a pain to comment on attached patches vs. inline ones.

Sorry, gmail does not allow inline patch.

>
> You added bus_max to pci_scan_root_bus().  I'd prefer to pass a
> pointer to a struct resource, as we do for io & mem resources.

Well that depends.

> I'd
> like to move away from pci_scan_root_bus() and toward a
> pci_scan_host_bridge() (as in the patches I posted) that takes all the
> host bridge-related info: parent, domain, resources (including bus
> number range), ops, sysdata.  I don't like the current scheme of
> "create it with defaults and fix them later."

No, struct host bridge is bad idea.  you are tracking host bridge and
peer root bus the same time.

>
> The printk %pR format supports bus numbers so you don't need to print
> them by hand.

later. will remove the debug print.

>
> struct pci_bus already has secondary & subordinate.  I don't think
> adding a "struct resource busn_res" adds useful information except for
> the root bus, where the bus number range comes from something external
> like _CRS rather than from the upstream bridge config.

no, we need that to tracking the busn usage. aka insert them into
iobusn_resource tree.

late it should be convert to list head even. for handling transparent bridge.

>
> This makes pci_scan_bridge() significantly more ugly than it already
> is.  I think it needs to get broken up.

Sure.

Yinghai
--
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/