All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>
To: Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@linux.intel.com>
Cc: "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
	Marc Zyngier <Marc.Zyngier@arm.com>,
	"hanjun.guo@linaro.org" <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>,
	Liviu Dudau <Liviu.Dudau@arm.com>,
	Yijing Wang <wangyijing@huawei.com>, Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
	Lv Zheng <lv.zheng@intel.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
	"x86 @ kernel . org" <x86@kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [Patch v5 4/6] PCI/ACPI: Consolidate common PCI host bridge code into ACPI core
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 17:12:30 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150609161230.GC8591@red-moon> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1433780448-18636-5-git-send-email-jiang.liu@linux.intel.com>

On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 05:20:46PM +0100, Jiang Liu wrote:

[...]

> +static int acpi_pci_probe_root_resources(struct acpi_pci_root_info *info)
> +{
> +	int ret;
> +	struct list_head *list = &info->resources;
> +	struct acpi_device *device = info->bridge;
> +	struct resource_entry *entry, *tmp;
> +	unsigned long flags;
> +
> +	flags = IORESOURCE_IO | IORESOURCE_MEM | IORESOURCE_MEM_8AND16BIT;

Is IORESOURCE_MEM_8AND16BIT required because of some pending patches
that will change ACPI resource filtering ? It does not seem to make
a difference in the mainline code, AFAICT.

> +	ret = acpi_dev_get_resources(device, list,
> +				     acpi_dev_filter_resource_type_cb,
> +				     (void *)flags);
> +	if (ret < 0)
> +		dev_warn(&device->dev,
> +			 "failed to parse _CRS method, error code %d\n", ret);
> +	else if (ret == 0)
> +		dev_dbg(&device->dev,
> +			"no IO and memory resources present in _CRS\n");
> +	else {
> +		resource_list_for_each_entry_safe(entry, tmp, list) {
> +			if (entry->res->flags & IORESOURCE_DISABLED)
> +				resource_list_destroy_entry(entry);
> +			else
> +				entry->res->name = info->name;
> +		}
> +		acpi_pci_root_validate_resources(&device->dev, list,
> +						 IORESOURCE_MEM);
> +		acpi_pci_root_validate_resources(&device->dev, list,
> +						 IORESOURCE_IO);
> +	}
> +
> +	return ret;
> +}
> +
> +static void pci_acpi_root_add_resources(struct acpi_pci_root_info *info)
> +{
> +	struct resource_entry *entry, *tmp;
> +	struct resource *res, *conflict, *root = NULL;
> +
> +	resource_list_for_each_entry_safe(entry, tmp, &info->resources) {
> +		res = entry->res;
> +		if (res->flags & IORESOURCE_MEM)
> +			root = &iomem_resource;
> +		else if (res->flags & IORESOURCE_IO)
> +			root = &ioport_resource;
> +		else
> +			continue;
> +
> +		conflict = insert_resource_conflict(root, res);
> +		if (conflict) {
> +			dev_info(&info->bridge->dev,
> +				 "ignoring host bridge window %pR (conflicts with %s %pR)\n",
> +				 res, conflict->name, conflict);
> +			resource_list_destroy_entry(entry);
> +		}
> +	}
> +}
> +
> +static void __acpi_pci_root_release_info(struct acpi_pci_root_info *info)
> +{
> +	struct resource *res;
> +	struct resource_entry *entry, *tmp;
> +
> +	if (!info)
> +		return;
> +
> +	resource_list_for_each_entry_safe(entry, tmp, &info->resources) {
> +		res = entry->res;
> +		if (res->parent &&
> +		    (res->flags & (IORESOURCE_MEM | IORESOURCE_IO)))
> +			release_resource(res);

> +		resource_list_destroy_entry(entry);
> +	}
> +
> +	info->ops->release_info(info);
> +}
> +
> +static void acpi_pci_root_release_info(struct pci_host_bridge *bridge)
> +{
> +	struct resource *res;
> +	struct resource_entry *entry;
> +
> +	resource_list_for_each_entry(entry, &bridge->windows) {
> +		res = entry->res;
> +		if (res->parent &&
> +		    (res->flags & (IORESOURCE_MEM | IORESOURCE_IO)))
> +			release_resource(res);
> +	}

It is a question: is this loop necessary given that we are already
releasing resources in __acpi_pci_root_release_info() ?

> +	__acpi_pci_root_release_info(bridge->release_data);
> +}
> +
> +struct pci_bus *acpi_pci_root_create(struct acpi_pci_root *root,
> +				     struct acpi_pci_root_ops *ops,
> +				     struct acpi_pci_root_info *info,
> +				     void *sysdata, int segment, int node)

I do not think you need to pass segment and node, they clutter the
function signature when you can retrieve them from root, I would
make them local variables and use root->segment and acpi_get_node
in the function body to retrieve them.

> +{
> +	int ret, busnum = root->secondary.start;
> +	struct acpi_device *device = root->device;
> +	struct pci_bus *bus;
> +
> +	info->root = root;
> +	info->bridge = device;
> +	info->ops = ops;
> +	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&info->resources);
> +	snprintf(info->name, sizeof(info->name), "PCI Bus %04x:%02x",
> +		 segment, busnum);
> +
> +	if (ops->init_info && ops->init_info(info))
> +		goto out_release_info;
> +	ret = acpi_pci_probe_root_resources(info);
> +	if (ops->prepare_resources)
> +		ret = ops->prepare_resources(info, ret);

You go through this ret passing song and dance because we may want to
call prepare_resources even if acpi_pci_probe_root_resource failed (on
x86), correct ? I will have a further look at x86 and ia64 if we
can consolidate these ops function hooks even further.

Thanks,
Lorenzo

> +	if (ret < 0)
> +		goto out_release_info;
> +	else if (ret > 0)
> +		pci_acpi_root_add_resources(info);
> +	pci_add_resource(&info->resources, &root->secondary);
> +
> +	bus = pci_create_root_bus(NULL, busnum, ops->pci_ops,
> +				  sysdata, &info->resources);
> +	if (bus) {
> +		pci_scan_child_bus(bus);
> +		pci_set_host_bridge_release(to_pci_host_bridge(bus->bridge),
> +					    acpi_pci_root_release_info, info);
> +		if (node != NUMA_NO_NODE)
> +			dev_printk(KERN_DEBUG, &bus->dev, "on NUMA node %d\n",
> +				   node);
> +		return bus;
> +	}
> +
> +out_release_info:
> +	__acpi_pci_root_release_info(info);
> +	return NULL;
> +}
> +
>  void __init acpi_pci_root_init(void)
>  {
>  	acpi_hest_init();
> diff --git a/include/linux/pci-acpi.h b/include/linux/pci-acpi.h
> index a965efa52152..a76cb6f24ca1 100644
> --- a/include/linux/pci-acpi.h
> +++ b/include/linux/pci-acpi.h
> @@ -52,6 +52,29 @@ static inline acpi_handle acpi_pci_get_bridge_handle(struct pci_bus *pbus)
>  	return ACPI_HANDLE(dev);
>  }
>  
> +struct acpi_pci_root;
> +struct acpi_pci_root_ops;
> +
> +struct acpi_pci_root_info {
> +	struct acpi_pci_root		*root;
> +	struct acpi_device		*bridge;
> +	struct acpi_pci_root_ops	*ops;
> +	struct list_head		resources;
> +	char				name[16];
> +};
> +
> +struct acpi_pci_root_ops {
> +	struct pci_ops *pci_ops;
> +	int (*init_info)(struct acpi_pci_root_info *info);
> +	void (*release_info)(struct acpi_pci_root_info *info);
> +	int (*prepare_resources)(struct acpi_pci_root_info *info, int status);
> +};
> +
> +extern struct pci_bus *acpi_pci_root_create(struct acpi_pci_root *root,
> +					    struct acpi_pci_root_ops *ops,
> +					    struct acpi_pci_root_info *info,
> +					    void *sd, int seg, int node);
> +
>  void acpi_pci_add_bus(struct pci_bus *bus);
>  void acpi_pci_remove_bus(struct pci_bus *bus);
>  
> -- 
> 1.7.10.4
> 

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com (Lorenzo Pieralisi)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [Patch v5 4/6] PCI/ACPI: Consolidate common PCI host bridge code into ACPI core
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 17:12:30 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150609161230.GC8591@red-moon> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1433780448-18636-5-git-send-email-jiang.liu@linux.intel.com>

On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 05:20:46PM +0100, Jiang Liu wrote:

[...]

> +static int acpi_pci_probe_root_resources(struct acpi_pci_root_info *info)
> +{
> +	int ret;
> +	struct list_head *list = &info->resources;
> +	struct acpi_device *device = info->bridge;
> +	struct resource_entry *entry, *tmp;
> +	unsigned long flags;
> +
> +	flags = IORESOURCE_IO | IORESOURCE_MEM | IORESOURCE_MEM_8AND16BIT;

Is IORESOURCE_MEM_8AND16BIT required because of some pending patches
that will change ACPI resource filtering ? It does not seem to make
a difference in the mainline code, AFAICT.

> +	ret = acpi_dev_get_resources(device, list,
> +				     acpi_dev_filter_resource_type_cb,
> +				     (void *)flags);
> +	if (ret < 0)
> +		dev_warn(&device->dev,
> +			 "failed to parse _CRS method, error code %d\n", ret);
> +	else if (ret == 0)
> +		dev_dbg(&device->dev,
> +			"no IO and memory resources present in _CRS\n");
> +	else {
> +		resource_list_for_each_entry_safe(entry, tmp, list) {
> +			if (entry->res->flags & IORESOURCE_DISABLED)
> +				resource_list_destroy_entry(entry);
> +			else
> +				entry->res->name = info->name;
> +		}
> +		acpi_pci_root_validate_resources(&device->dev, list,
> +						 IORESOURCE_MEM);
> +		acpi_pci_root_validate_resources(&device->dev, list,
> +						 IORESOURCE_IO);
> +	}
> +
> +	return ret;
> +}
> +
> +static void pci_acpi_root_add_resources(struct acpi_pci_root_info *info)
> +{
> +	struct resource_entry *entry, *tmp;
> +	struct resource *res, *conflict, *root = NULL;
> +
> +	resource_list_for_each_entry_safe(entry, tmp, &info->resources) {
> +		res = entry->res;
> +		if (res->flags & IORESOURCE_MEM)
> +			root = &iomem_resource;
> +		else if (res->flags & IORESOURCE_IO)
> +			root = &ioport_resource;
> +		else
> +			continue;
> +
> +		conflict = insert_resource_conflict(root, res);
> +		if (conflict) {
> +			dev_info(&info->bridge->dev,
> +				 "ignoring host bridge window %pR (conflicts with %s %pR)\n",
> +				 res, conflict->name, conflict);
> +			resource_list_destroy_entry(entry);
> +		}
> +	}
> +}
> +
> +static void __acpi_pci_root_release_info(struct acpi_pci_root_info *info)
> +{
> +	struct resource *res;
> +	struct resource_entry *entry, *tmp;
> +
> +	if (!info)
> +		return;
> +
> +	resource_list_for_each_entry_safe(entry, tmp, &info->resources) {
> +		res = entry->res;
> +		if (res->parent &&
> +		    (res->flags & (IORESOURCE_MEM | IORESOURCE_IO)))
> +			release_resource(res);

> +		resource_list_destroy_entry(entry);
> +	}
> +
> +	info->ops->release_info(info);
> +}
> +
> +static void acpi_pci_root_release_info(struct pci_host_bridge *bridge)
> +{
> +	struct resource *res;
> +	struct resource_entry *entry;
> +
> +	resource_list_for_each_entry(entry, &bridge->windows) {
> +		res = entry->res;
> +		if (res->parent &&
> +		    (res->flags & (IORESOURCE_MEM | IORESOURCE_IO)))
> +			release_resource(res);
> +	}

It is a question: is this loop necessary given that we are already
releasing resources in __acpi_pci_root_release_info() ?

> +	__acpi_pci_root_release_info(bridge->release_data);
> +}
> +
> +struct pci_bus *acpi_pci_root_create(struct acpi_pci_root *root,
> +				     struct acpi_pci_root_ops *ops,
> +				     struct acpi_pci_root_info *info,
> +				     void *sysdata, int segment, int node)

I do not think you need to pass segment and node, they clutter the
function signature when you can retrieve them from root, I would
make them local variables and use root->segment and acpi_get_node
in the function body to retrieve them.

> +{
> +	int ret, busnum = root->secondary.start;
> +	struct acpi_device *device = root->device;
> +	struct pci_bus *bus;
> +
> +	info->root = root;
> +	info->bridge = device;
> +	info->ops = ops;
> +	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&info->resources);
> +	snprintf(info->name, sizeof(info->name), "PCI Bus %04x:%02x",
> +		 segment, busnum);
> +
> +	if (ops->init_info && ops->init_info(info))
> +		goto out_release_info;
> +	ret = acpi_pci_probe_root_resources(info);
> +	if (ops->prepare_resources)
> +		ret = ops->prepare_resources(info, ret);

You go through this ret passing song and dance because we may want to
call prepare_resources even if acpi_pci_probe_root_resource failed (on
x86), correct ? I will have a further look at x86 and ia64 if we
can consolidate these ops function hooks even further.

Thanks,
Lorenzo

> +	if (ret < 0)
> +		goto out_release_info;
> +	else if (ret > 0)
> +		pci_acpi_root_add_resources(info);
> +	pci_add_resource(&info->resources, &root->secondary);
> +
> +	bus = pci_create_root_bus(NULL, busnum, ops->pci_ops,
> +				  sysdata, &info->resources);
> +	if (bus) {
> +		pci_scan_child_bus(bus);
> +		pci_set_host_bridge_release(to_pci_host_bridge(bus->bridge),
> +					    acpi_pci_root_release_info, info);
> +		if (node != NUMA_NO_NODE)
> +			dev_printk(KERN_DEBUG, &bus->dev, "on NUMA node %d\n",
> +				   node);
> +		return bus;
> +	}
> +
> +out_release_info:
> +	__acpi_pci_root_release_info(info);
> +	return NULL;
> +}
> +
>  void __init acpi_pci_root_init(void)
>  {
>  	acpi_hest_init();
> diff --git a/include/linux/pci-acpi.h b/include/linux/pci-acpi.h
> index a965efa52152..a76cb6f24ca1 100644
> --- a/include/linux/pci-acpi.h
> +++ b/include/linux/pci-acpi.h
> @@ -52,6 +52,29 @@ static inline acpi_handle acpi_pci_get_bridge_handle(struct pci_bus *pbus)
>  	return ACPI_HANDLE(dev);
>  }
>  
> +struct acpi_pci_root;
> +struct acpi_pci_root_ops;
> +
> +struct acpi_pci_root_info {
> +	struct acpi_pci_root		*root;
> +	struct acpi_device		*bridge;
> +	struct acpi_pci_root_ops	*ops;
> +	struct list_head		resources;
> +	char				name[16];
> +};
> +
> +struct acpi_pci_root_ops {
> +	struct pci_ops *pci_ops;
> +	int (*init_info)(struct acpi_pci_root_info *info);
> +	void (*release_info)(struct acpi_pci_root_info *info);
> +	int (*prepare_resources)(struct acpi_pci_root_info *info, int status);
> +};
> +
> +extern struct pci_bus *acpi_pci_root_create(struct acpi_pci_root *root,
> +					    struct acpi_pci_root_ops *ops,
> +					    struct acpi_pci_root_info *info,
> +					    void *sd, int seg, int node);
> +
>  void acpi_pci_add_bus(struct pci_bus *bus);
>  void acpi_pci_remove_bus(struct pci_bus *bus);
>  
> -- 
> 1.7.10.4
> 

  reply	other threads:[~2015-06-09 16:12 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 49+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-06-08 16:20 [Patch v5 0/6] Consolidate ACPI PCI root common code into ACPI core Jiang Liu
2015-06-08 16:20 ` Jiang Liu
2015-06-08 16:20 ` [Patch v5 1/6] ACPI/PCI: Enhance ACPI core to support sparse IO space Jiang Liu
2015-06-08 16:20   ` Jiang Liu
2015-07-29 20:37   ` Bjorn Helgaas
2015-07-29 20:37     ` Bjorn Helgaas
2015-09-09  6:38     ` Jiang Liu
2015-09-09  6:38       ` Jiang Liu
2015-09-09 14:54       ` Bjorn Helgaas
2015-09-09 14:54         ` Bjorn Helgaas
2015-06-08 16:20 ` [Patch v5 2/6] ia64/PCI/ACPI: Use common ACPI resource parsing interface for host bridge Jiang Liu
2015-06-08 16:20   ` Jiang Liu
2015-06-08 16:20   ` Jiang Liu
2015-06-08 16:20 ` [Patch v5 3/6] ia64/PCI: Use common struct resource_entry to replace struct iospace_resource Jiang Liu
2015-06-08 16:20   ` Jiang Liu
2015-06-08 16:20   ` Jiang Liu
2015-06-08 16:20 ` [Patch v5 4/6] PCI/ACPI: Consolidate common PCI host bridge code into ACPI core Jiang Liu
2015-06-08 16:20   ` Jiang Liu
2015-06-09 16:12   ` Lorenzo Pieralisi [this message]
2015-06-09 16:12     ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2015-06-09 16:12     ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2015-06-09 16:58     ` Jiang Liu
2015-06-09 16:58       ` Jiang Liu
2015-06-09 16:58       ` Jiang Liu
2015-06-10 16:48       ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2015-06-10 16:48         ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2015-06-10 16:48         ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2015-06-10 17:19         ` Jiang Liu
2015-06-10 17:19           ` Jiang Liu
2015-06-10 17:19           ` Jiang Liu
2015-06-11 16:18           ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2015-06-11 16:18             ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2015-06-11 16:18             ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2015-07-29 20:54       ` Bjorn Helgaas
2015-07-29 20:54         ` Bjorn Helgaas
2015-07-29 20:54         ` Bjorn Helgaas
2015-07-29 20:24   ` Bjorn Helgaas
2015-07-29 20:24     ` Bjorn Helgaas
2015-06-08 16:20 ` [Patch v5 5/6] x86/PCI/ACPI: Use common interface to support PCI host bridge Jiang Liu
2015-06-08 16:20   ` Jiang Liu
2015-06-08 16:20 ` [Patch v5 6/6] ia64/PCI/ACPI: " Jiang Liu
2015-06-08 16:20   ` Jiang Liu
2015-06-08 16:20   ` Jiang Liu
2015-07-29 12:17 ` [Patch v5 0/6] Consolidate ACPI PCI root common code into ACPI core Hanjun Guo
2015-07-29 12:17   ` Hanjun Guo
2015-07-29 20:30   ` Bjorn Helgaas
2015-07-29 20:30     ` Bjorn Helgaas
2015-07-30  7:58     ` Jiang Liu
2015-07-30  7:58       ` Jiang Liu

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20150609161230.GC8591@red-moon \
    --to=lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com \
    --cc=Liviu.Dudau@arm.com \
    --cc=Marc.Zyngier@arm.com \
    --cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
    --cc=hanjun.guo@linaro.org \
    --cc=jiang.liu@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=lenb@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lv.zheng@intel.com \
    --cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
    --cc=wangyijing@huawei.com \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.