From: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>
To: Jiang Liu <liuj97@gmail.com>
Cc: Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@huawei.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>,
Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>,
Kenji Kaneshige <kaneshige.kenji@jp.fujitsu.com>,
Yijing Wang <wangyijing@huawei.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@hp.com>,
Myron Stowe <myron.stowe@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v5 0/8] introduce PCI bus notifier chain to get rid of the ACPI PCI subdriver interfaces
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2013 15:52:29 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAErSpo7zOeefmuV7Pe08pQEER54wMUOUT68X_QuKsJduzfoexQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <510BE9AB.9010702@gmail.com>
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 9:13 AM, Jiang Liu <liuj97@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 01/29/2013 10:04 AM, Jiang Liu wrote:
>> On 2013-1-29 8:34, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Monday, January 28, 2013 01:56:33 PM Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 9:07 AM, Jiang Liu <liuj97@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> This is an RFC patchset to address review comments in thread at:
>>>>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/1946851/. The patch just pasts
>>>>> compilation. If no objection to the new implementation, I will
>>>>> go on to modify acpiphp driver and conduct tests.
>>>>>
>>>>> The main changes from V4 to V5 includes:
>>>>> 1) introduce a dedicated notifier chain for PCI buses
>>>>> 2) change pci_slot as built-in driver
>>>>> 3) unify the way to create/destroy PCI slots
>>>>> 4) introduce a kernel option to disable PCIe native hotplug
>>>>>
>>>>> TODO:
>>>>> 1) change acpiphp as built-in and unify the way to create/destroy ACPI
>>>>> based hotplug slots.
>>>>> 2) change other ACPI PCI subdriver in Yinghai's root bridge hotplug series
>>>>> to use the PCI bus notifier chain.
>>>>> 3) Remove the ACPI PCI subdriver interface eventaully.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jiang Liu (8):
>>>>> PCI: make PCI device create/destroy logic symmetric
>>>>> PCI: split registration of PCI bus devices into two stages
>>>>> PCI: add a blocking notifier chain for PCI bus addition/removal
>>>>> ACPI, PCI: avoid building pci_slot as module
>>>>> PCI, ACPI: hook PCI bus notifications to create/destroy PCI slots
>>>>> pci_slot: replace printk(KERN_xxx) with pr_xxx()
>>>>> PCI/PCIe: add "pci=nopciehp" to disable PCIe native hotplug
>>>>> PCI/PCIe: only claim PME from firmware when CONFIG_PCIE_PME is
>>>>> enabled
>>>>>
>>>>> Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt | 2 +
>>>>> drivers/acpi/Kconfig | 5 +-
>>>>> drivers/acpi/internal.h | 5 +
>>>>> drivers/acpi/pci_root.c | 8 +-
>>>>> drivers/acpi/pci_slot.c | 217 ++++++++++-------------------------
>>>>> drivers/acpi/scan.c | 1 +
>>>>> drivers/pci/bus.c | 26 ++++-
>>>>> drivers/pci/pci.c | 2 +
>>>>> drivers/pci/pci.h | 1 +
>>>>> drivers/pci/pcie/portdrv_core.c | 7 +-
>>>>> drivers/pci/pcie/portdrv_pci.c | 3 +
>>>>> drivers/pci/probe.c | 7 +-
>>>>> drivers/pci/remove.c | 15 +--
>>>>> include/linux/pci.h | 21 ++++
>>>>> 14 files changed, 142 insertions(+), 178 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> I think the problem we're trying to solve is that we don't initialize
>>>> hot-added devices, correctly, e.g., we don't set up AER, we don't
>>>> update acpi/pci_slot stuff, we probably don't set up PME etc. We also
>>>> have similar issues like IOMMU init on powerpc.
>>>>
>>>> Notifier chains seem like an unnecessarily complicated way to deal
>>>> with this. They're great for communicating between modules that stay
>>>> at arm's length from each other. But that's not the case here --
>>>> everything is PCI and is quite closely coupled. I think AER, PME,
>>>> slot, etc., should be initialized directly in pci_device_add() or
>>>> somewhere nearby.
>>>
>>> I agree.
>>>
>>>> This might sound a bit radical because it implies some fairly
>>>> far-reaching changes. It means this code can't be a module (the only
>>>> one that can be built as a module today is pciehp, and I think
>>>> everybody agrees that we should make it static as soon as we can
>>>> figure out the acpiphp/pciehp issue). I think it also means the
>>>> pcieportdrv concept is of dubious value, since all the services should
>>>> be known at build-time and we probably don't need a registration
>>>> interface for them.
>>>
>>> It is of dubious value regardless. It just adds complexity for no gain.
>>> Moreover, these things are in fact not mutually independent.
>>>
>>> I've had a lot of headaches trying to work around that when I was working
>>> on PME support and later on _OSC for root bridges. Let's just take that
>>> stuff away once and for good. :-)
>> Hi Bjorn and Rafael,
>> Thanks for advice. We will go this direction to change those modules
>> as built-in.
>> Regards!
>> Gerry
>>
> Hi Bjorn,
> I have done some investigation about how to implement this without
> using notifier chain. Due to commit "PCI: Put pci_dev in device tree as early
> as possible", a PCI device will be registered to the driver core before creating
> the subordinate PCI bus. So we can't reply on the ACPI PCI device glue code
> to create/destroy PCI slots or acpiphp hotplug slots. So my current plan is
> to introduce two weak functions as below, is it acceptable?
That seems fine to me. I think you wrote "pcibios_remove_bus(b)"
below in pci_create_root_bus() when you probably meant
"pcibios_add_bus(b)." But I'm sure you would have found that soon :)
Anyway, I think a directly-called weak function will be much easier to
understand than a notifier-based solution.
Bjorn
> diff --git a/drivers/pci/probe.c b/drivers/pci/probe.c
> index b494066..a5c22e7 100644
> --- a/drivers/pci/probe.c
> +++ b/drivers/pci/probe.c
> @@ -673,6 +673,8 @@ add_dev:
> ret = device_register(&child->dev);
> WARN_ON(ret < 0);
>
> + pcibios_add_bus(child);
> +
> /* Create legacy_io and legacy_mem files for this bus */
> pci_create_legacy_files(child);
>
> @@ -1661,6 +1663,14 @@ int __weak pcibios_root_bridge_prepare(struct pci_host_bridge *
> return 0;
> }
>
> +void __weak pcibios_add_bus(struct pci_bus *bus)
> +{
> +}
> +
> +void __weak pcibios_remove_bus(struct pci_bus *bus)
> +{
> +}
> +
> struct pci_bus *pci_create_root_bus(struct device *parent, int bus,
> struct pci_ops *ops, void *sysdata, struct list_head *resources)
> {
> @@ -1715,6 +1725,8 @@ struct pci_bus *pci_create_root_bus(struct device *parent, int b
> if (error)
> goto class_dev_reg_err;
>
> + pcibios_remove_bus(b);
> +
> /* Create legacy_io and legacy_mem files for this bus */
> pci_create_legacy_files(b);
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pci/remove.c b/drivers/pci/remove.c
> index fc38c48..3dbdf82 100644
> --- a/drivers/pci/remove.c
> +++ b/drivers/pci/remove.c
> @@ -52,6 +52,7 @@ void pci_remove_bus(struct pci_bus *bus)
> return;
>
> pci_remove_legacy_files(bus);
> + pcibios_remove_bus(child);
> device_unregister(&bus->dev);
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(pci_remove_bus);
> diff --git a/include/linux/pci.h b/include/linux/pci.h
> index 056d3d6..fd8ba0c 100644
> --- a/include/linux/pci.h
> +++ b/include/linux/pci.h
> @@ -380,6 +380,8 @@ void pci_set_host_bridge_release(struct pci_host_bridge *bridge,
> void *release_data);
>
> int pcibios_root_bridge_prepare(struct pci_host_bridge *bridge);
> +void pcibios_add_bus(struct pci_bus *bus);
> +void pcibios_remove_bus(struct pci_bus *bus);
>
> /*
> * The first PCI_BRIDGE_RESOURCE_NUM PCI bus resources (those that correspond
>
>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Rafael
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-02-01 22:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 46+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-01-18 16:07 [RFC PATCH v5 0/8] introduce PCI bus notifier chain to get rid of the ACPI PCI subdriver interfaces Jiang Liu
2013-01-18 16:07 ` [RFC PATCH v5 1/8] PCI: make PCI device create/destroy logic symmetric Jiang Liu
2013-01-20 23:35 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-01-18 16:07 ` [RFC PATCH v5 2/8] PCI: split registration of PCI bus devices into two stages Jiang Liu
2013-01-18 16:07 ` [RFC PATCH v5 3/8] PCI: add a blocking notifier chain for PCI bus addition/removal Jiang Liu
2013-01-20 23:54 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-01-21 16:18 ` Jiang Liu
2013-01-21 22:46 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-01-18 16:07 ` [RFC PATCH v5 4/8] ACPI, PCI: avoid building pci_slot as module Jiang Liu
2013-01-21 0:01 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-01-28 21:09 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2013-01-28 21:29 ` Yinghai Lu
2013-01-28 21:52 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2013-01-28 22:00 ` Yinghai Lu
2013-01-28 22:14 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2013-01-28 22:58 ` Yinghai Lu
2013-01-29 2:07 ` Jiang Liu
2013-01-29 2:21 ` Yinghai Lu
2013-01-29 2:45 ` Jiang Liu
2013-01-29 2:50 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2013-01-29 4:36 ` Matthew Garrett
2013-01-29 4:36 ` Matthew Garrett
2013-01-29 1:00 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-02-03 20:18 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-02-03 20:58 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2013-02-03 22:47 ` Myron Stowe
2013-02-03 23:38 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-01-18 16:07 ` [RFC PATCH v5 5/8] PCI, ACPI: hook PCI bus notifications to create/destroy PCI slots Jiang Liu
2013-01-21 0:05 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-01-18 16:07 ` [RFC PATCH v5 6/8] pci_slot: replace printk(KERN_xxx) with pr_xxx() Jiang Liu
2013-01-18 16:07 ` [RFC PATCH v5 7/8] PCI/PCIe: add "pci=nopciehp" to disable PCIe native hotplug Jiang Liu
2013-01-18 17:35 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2013-01-18 17:50 ` Yinghai Lu
2013-01-18 22:08 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-01-22 16:19 ` Jiang Liu
2013-01-18 22:01 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-01-19 1:56 ` Yijing Wang
2013-01-19 14:51 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2013-01-18 16:07 ` [RFC PATCH v5 8/8] PCI/PCIe: only claim PME from firmware when CONFIG_PCIE_PME is enabled Jiang Liu
2013-01-20 23:43 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-01-21 17:06 ` Jiang Liu
2013-01-28 20:56 ` [RFC PATCH v5 0/8] introduce PCI bus notifier chain to get rid of the ACPI PCI subdriver interfaces Bjorn Helgaas
2013-01-29 0:34 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-01-29 2:04 ` Jiang Liu
2013-02-01 16:13 ` Jiang Liu
2013-02-01 22:52 ` Bjorn Helgaas [this message]
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=CAErSpo7zOeefmuV7Pe08pQEER54wMUOUT68X_QuKsJduzfoexQ@mail.gmail.com \
--to=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jiang.liu@huawei.com \
--cc=kaneshige.kenji@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=liuj97@gmail.com \
--cc=myron.stowe@redhat.com \
--cc=rjw@sisk.pl \
--cc=toshi.kani@hp.com \
--cc=wangyijing@huawei.com \
--cc=yinghai@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).