[PATCH v7 2/3] PCI: Add support for PCI inbound windows resources

Bjorn Helgaas bhelgaas at google.com
Thu Jun 1 10:08:59 PDT 2017


On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Oza Oza <oza.oza at broadcom.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 4:12 AM, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas at google.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Oza Pawandeep <oza.oza at broadcom.com> wrote:
>>> This patch adds support for inbound memory window
>>> for PCI RC drivers.
>>>
>>> It defines new function pci_create_root_bus2 which
>>> takes inbound resources as an argument and fills in the
>>> memory resource to PCI internal host bridge structure
>>> as inbound_windows.
>>>
>>> Legacy RC driver could continue to use pci_create_root_bus,
>>> but any RC driver who wants to reseve IOVAS for their
>>> inbound memory holes, should use new API pci_create_root_bus2.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Oza Pawandeep <oza.oza at broadcom.com>
>>> ...
>>
>>> +struct pci_bus *pci_create_root_bus2(struct device *parent, int bus,
>>> +               struct pci_ops *ops, void *sysdata, struct list_head *resources,
>>> +               struct list_head *in_res)
>>> +{
>>> +       return pci_create_root_bus_msi(parent, bus, ops, sysdata,
>>> +                                      resources, in_res, NULL);
>>> +}
>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pci_create_root_bus2);
>>
>> Based on your response to Lorenzo's "[RFC/RFT PATCH 03/18] PCI:
>> Introduce pci_scan_root_bus_bridge()", I'm hoping you can avoid adding
>> yet another variant of pci_create_root_bus().
>>
>> So I think I can wait for that to settle out and look for a v8?
>>
>> Bjorn
>
> Sure Bjorn, please wait for v8.
>
> But there is one more associated patch
> [PATCH v7 1/3] OF/PCI: Export inbound memory interface to PCI RC
> which basically aims to provide an interface to RC drivers for their
> inbound resources.
> RC driver already get their outbound resources from
> of_pci_get_host_bridge_resources,
> similar attempt for inbound dma-ranges.

Not sure I understand.  Patch 1/3 adds of_pci_get_dma_ranges(), but
none of the patches adds a caller, so I don't see the point of it yet.

In general, if I'm expecting another revision of one patch in a
series, I expect the next revision to include *all* the patches in the
series.  I normally don't pick out and apply individual patches from
the series.

Bjorn



More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list