On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 07:41:50PM +0100, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 4:46 AM, Liviu Dudau Liviu.Dudau@arm.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 01:59:54AM +0100, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
I wonder if it would help to make a weak pci_domain_nr() function that returns "bridge->domain_nr". Then each arch could individually drop its pci_domain_nr() definition as it was converted, e.g., something like this:
- Convert every arch pci_domain_nr() from a #define to a non-inline function
- Add bridge.domain_nr, initialized from pci_domain_nr()
- Add a weak generic pci_domain_nr() that returns bridge.domain_nr
- Add a way to create a host bridge in a specified domain, so we can initialize bridge.domain_nr without using pci_domain_nr()
- Convert each arch to use the new creation mechanism and drop its pci_domain_nr() implementation
I will try to propose a patch implementing this.
I think this is more of an extra credit, cleanup sort of thing. I don't think it advances your primary goal of (I think) getting arm64 PCI support in. So my advice is to not worry about unifying domain handling until later.
Getting arm64 supported *is* my main goal. But like you have stated in your review of v7, you wanted to see another architecture converted as a guarantee of "genericity" (for lack of a better word) for my patches. The one architecture I've set my eyes on is microblaze, and that one uses pci_scan_root_bus() rather than pci_create_root_bus() so I don't have any opportunity to pass the domain number or any additional info (like the sysdata pointer that we were talking about) to the pci_host_bridge structure unless I do this cleanup.
Best regards, Liviu
Bjorn