From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e24smtp03.br.ibm.com (e24smtp03.br.ibm.com [32.104.18.24]) (using TLSv1 with cipher CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C198E1A001D for ; Wed, 20 Jan 2016 07:11:34 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from localhost by e24smtp03.br.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 18:11:29 -0200 Received: from d24relay01.br.ibm.com (d24relay01.br.ibm.com [9.8.31.16]) by d24dlp01.br.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE1B03520068 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 15:11:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from d24av04.br.ibm.com (d24av04.br.ibm.com [9.8.31.97]) by d24relay01.br.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id u0JKC2ST2642168 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 18:12:04 -0200 Received: from d24av04.br.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d24av04.br.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id u0JKBOHf002934 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 18:11:24 -0200 Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc/eeh: Validate arch in eeh_add_device_early() To: Michael Ellerman References: <1452395295-1759-1-git-send-email-gpiccoli@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1452681487.7404.6.camel@ellerman.id.au> <56963E40.8070702@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1452720339.8203.4.camel@ellerman.id.au> <5697FE17.4070605@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1452814633.19265.1.camel@ellerman.id.au> Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, paulus@samba.org, gwshan@linux.vnet.ibm.com From: "Guilherme G. Piccoli" Message-ID: <569E986B.3000506@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 18:11:23 -0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1452814633.19265.1.camel@ellerman.id.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 01/14/2016 09:37 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote: >> So, since my patch does not cover this case, I think would be more >> interesting "unlink" the DDW mechanism from the EEH. It seems easy, I'll >> try to send you a patch soon. >> >> Do you think it is a good approach? > > It sounds good, but I don't know off hand whether it will work. See how it goes > and send us the patch. You are right (again!). It's kind of complicated to unlink DDW from EEH since it relies on EEH to get the config. address of devices. Instead of try to unlink it, I've inserted an EEH check to avoid issues in case DDW can't count on EEH being enabled. Will sent the patches to the list. Thanks very much for your help and comments, Guilherme