Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754211AbaBZXsV (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Feb 2014 18:48:21 -0500 Received: from mail-ig0-f169.google.com ([209.85.213.169]:38087 "EHLO mail-ig0-f169.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752816AbaBZXsS (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Feb 2014 18:48:18 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20140226224844.219fe0ac@alan.etchedpixels.co.uk> References: <20140226190306.9616.30567.stgit@bhelgaas-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com> <20140226190927.9616.43043.stgit@bhelgaas-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com> <20140226224844.219fe0ac@alan.etchedpixels.co.uk> From: Bjorn Helgaas Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 16:47:58 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] i2o: Use pci_bus_alloc_resource(), not allocate_resource() directly To: One Thousand Gnomes Cc: "linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" , Markus Lidel , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 3:48 PM, One Thousand Gnomes wrote: > On Wed, 26 Feb 2014 12:09:27 -0700 > Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > >> Convert i2o_res_alloc() to use pci_bus_alloc_resource() rather than >> pci_find_parent_resource() and allocate_resource(). We don't have a >> resource to start with, so pci_find_parent_resource() can't do anything >> useful: a bus may have several memory resources available, so there might >> be several possible parents. This is more likely on root buses because >> host bridges may have any number of apertures. >> >> I'm pretty sure this didn't work in the first place because it passed >> size == min == max to allocate_resource(). The min and max parameters are >> constraints on the *addresses* of the resource, not on its size, so I think >> it was impossible for allocate_resource() to succeed. > > I don't think many i2o controllers ever used that path, and I doubt any > in normal use did as the vision of offloading for devices on the host bus > basically never happened (it happened even less than i2o) > > A rather more sensible question might be "If i2o went away is there > anyone who would even notice". About the only devices that ever used i2o > in the real world (AMI MegaRAID and some FC stuff) had native firmware or > modes that worked better anyway. I don't know anything about i2o, so I have no idea whether it could be completely removed. I just want to remove its usage of pci_find_parent_resource() so I can change the semantics of that a bit (see [1]). Bjorn [1] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20140226193723.10125.15799.stgit@bhelgaas-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/