Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752529AbcD0Ceg (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Apr 2016 22:34:36 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.136]:53100 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751998AbcD0Cee (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Apr 2016 22:34:34 -0400 Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 21:34:29 -0500 From: Bjorn Helgaas To: Tomasz Nowicki Cc: arnd@arndb.de, will.deacon@arm.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com, rafael@kernel.org, hanjun.guo@linaro.org, Lorenzo.Pieralisi@arm.com, okaya@codeaurora.org, jiang.liu@linux.intel.com, jchandra@broadcom.com, robert.richter@caviumnetworks.com, mw@semihalf.com, Liviu.Dudau@arm.com, ddaney@caviumnetworks.com, wangyijing@huawei.com, Suravee.Suthikulpanit@amd.com, msalter@redhat.com, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org, jcm@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH V6 03/13] x86, ia64: Include acpi_pci_{add|remove}_bus to the default pcibios_{add|remove}_bus implementation. Message-ID: <20160427023429.GE6789@localhost> References: <1460740008-19489-1-git-send-email-tn@semihalf.com> <1460740008-19489-4-git-send-email-tn@semihalf.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1460740008-19489-4-git-send-email-tn@semihalf.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3630 Lines: 107 On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 07:06:38PM +0200, Tomasz Nowicki wrote: > x86 and ia64 are the only arches that implement pcibios_{add|remove}_bus hooks > and implement them in the same way. Moreover ARM64 is going to do the same. > So it seems that acpi_pci_{add|remove}_bus is generic enough to be default > option for pcibios_{add|remove}_bus hooks. Also, it is always safe to run > acpi_pci_{add|remove}_bus as they have empty stubs for !ACPI case and > return if ACPI has been switched off in run time. > > After all we can remove x86 and ia64 pcibios_{add|remove}_bus > implementation. > > Signed-off-by: Tomasz Nowicki > Reviewed-by: Lorenzo Pieralisi > Tested-by: Duc Dang > Tested-by: Dongdong Liu > Tested-by: Hanjun Guo > Tested-by: Graeme Gregory > Tested-by: Sinan Kaya > --- > arch/ia64/pci/pci.c | 10 ---------- > arch/x86/pci/common.c | 10 ---------- > drivers/pci/probe.c | 3 +++ > 3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/ia64/pci/pci.c b/arch/ia64/pci/pci.c > index 978d6af..be4c9ef 100644 > --- a/arch/ia64/pci/pci.c > +++ b/arch/ia64/pci/pci.c > @@ -358,16 +358,6 @@ void pcibios_fixup_bus(struct pci_bus *b) > platform_pci_fixup_bus(b); > } > > -void pcibios_add_bus(struct pci_bus *bus) > -{ > - acpi_pci_add_bus(bus); > -} > - > -void pcibios_remove_bus(struct pci_bus *bus) > -{ > - acpi_pci_remove_bus(bus); > -} > - > void pcibios_set_master (struct pci_dev *dev) > { > /* No special bus mastering setup handling */ > diff --git a/arch/x86/pci/common.c b/arch/x86/pci/common.c > index 381a43c..7763a84 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/pci/common.c > +++ b/arch/x86/pci/common.c > @@ -170,16 +170,6 @@ void pcibios_fixup_bus(struct pci_bus *b) > pcibios_fixup_device_resources(dev); > } > > -void pcibios_add_bus(struct pci_bus *bus) > -{ > - acpi_pci_add_bus(bus); > -} > - > -void pcibios_remove_bus(struct pci_bus *bus) > -{ > - acpi_pci_remove_bus(bus); > -} > - > /* > * Only use DMI information to set this if nothing was passed > * on the kernel command line (which was parsed earlier). > diff --git a/drivers/pci/probe.c b/drivers/pci/probe.c > index 8087297..ef569e8 100644 > --- a/drivers/pci/probe.c > +++ b/drivers/pci/probe.c > @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@ > #include > #include > #include > +#include > #include > #include > #include > @@ -2101,10 +2102,12 @@ int __weak pcibios_root_bridge_prepare(struct pci_host_bridge *bridge) > > void __weak pcibios_add_bus(struct pci_bus *bus) > { > + acpi_pci_add_bus(bus); > } > > void __weak pcibios_remove_bus(struct pci_bus *bus) > { > + acpi_pci_remove_bus(bus); > } Is this buying us something more than just getting rid of these pcibios functions in the arches? The arch-specific pcibios methods by themselves don't seem too onerous, and I don't really want to add #includes and calls to every firmware interface under the sun. I admit it's a net removal of 17 lines, but I'm not sure it's a net reduction in complexity for the reader, who now has to remember that this ACPI stuff is a no-op on most arches. As a tangent, some of the stuff in acpi_pci_add_bus() really belongs elsewhere anyway. For example, the _DSM stuff should probably be in acpi_pci_root_create() since it's a one-per-host bridge kind of thing. > struct pci_bus *pci_create_root_bus(struct device *parent, int bus, > -- > 1.9.1 >