On Mon, 2014-01-06 at 14:10 +0800, Lian Minghuan-b31939 wrote:

On 01/04/2014 06:19 AM, Scott Wood wrote:

quoted

I don't like the extent to which this duplicates (not moves) PPC's struct
pci_controller.  Also this leaves some fields like "indirect_type"
unexplained (PPC_INDIRECT_TYPE_xxx is only in the PPC header).

Does the arch-independent part of the driver really need all this?  Given
how closely this tracks the PPC code, how would this work on ARM?

[Minghuan] I added the duplicate fields because PPC's struct 
pci_controller need them.

I think a better approach would be to create a cleanly architected
arch-independent driver.  Share what you reasonably can with the current
fsl_pci.c, but not to the extent of propagating PPCisms that don't match
up with what we ultimately want to see in generic code, or copying
things that ought to be controller-independent infrastructure into
controller-specific code.

See these threads:
http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-pci/msg25769.html
https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/5/4/103

The following is for ARM, I will submit them after verification:

[snip]

+static int fsl_pcie_register(struct fsl_pcie *pcie)
+{
+    pcie->controller = fsl_hw_pcie.nr_controllers;
+    fsl_hw_pcie.nr_controllers = 1;
+    fsl_hw_pcie.private_data = (void **)&pcie;

I believe this should be:
	fsl_hw_pcie.private_data = pcie;

+    pci_common_init(&fsl_hw_pcie);
+    pci_assign_unassigned_resources();
+#ifdef CONFIG_PCI_DOMAINS
+    fsl_hw_pcie.domain++;
+#endif

What serializes that non-atomic increment?

-Scott