Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 30 Jan 2019 09:28:55 -0800
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To:     Thomas Bogendoerfer <tbogendoerfer@suse.de>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
        James Hogan <jhogan@kernel.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>,
        Paul Burton <paul.burton@mips.com>,
        Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/7] MIPS: SGI-IP27: use generic PCI driver
Message-ID: <20190130172855.GA2962@infradead.org>
References: <20190124174728.28812-1-tbogendoerfer@suse.de>
 <20190124174728.28812-7-tbogendoerfer@suse.de>
 <20190128133215.GC744@infradead.org>
 <20190129162445.8584b58862068c0a7693718c@suse.de>
 <20190130091706.GA3617@infradead.org>
 <20190130182520.2864ad962605b43f1635e4fd@suse.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190130182520.2864ad962605b43f1635e4fd@suse.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 06:25:20PM +0100, Thomas Bogendoerfer wrote:
> 
> and it's already there:-) Each struct device has a field numa_node and pci_bus has
> contains a struct device. arm64 is already using it only not so nice part is the
> usage of pcibios_root_bridge_prepare() to set the numa_node for the root bus.

Oh, great.  Maybe we can then just use that field for mips for now
and gradually move all architectures over.

> > Or add a add_dev callback, similar to what I did for a previous series
> > that we didn't end up needing after all:
> > 
> > http://git.infradead.org/users/hch/misc.git/commitdiff/06d9b4fc7deed336edc1292fe2e661729e98ec39
> 
> that's exactly what I'm looking for. Should I add the patch for my patchset or
> are you going to submit it after having a use case ?

Feel free to pick it up.  For the dma addressing limitations we
decided that exposing it through a DT property is the right way, so
that series isn't going anywhere.