On Sat, May 09, 2015 at 09:43:16PM +1000, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
On 05/01/2015 04:02 PM, Gavin Shan wrote:
Currently, the PEs and their associated resources are assigned
in ppc_md.pcibios_fixup(). The function is called for once after
PCI probing and resources assignment are finished. Obviously, it's
not hotplug friendly. The patch creates PEs dynamically by
ppc_md.pcibios_setup_bridge(), which is called on the event during
system bootup and PCI hotplug: updating PCI bridge's windows after
resource assignment/reassignment are finished. For partial hotplug
case, where not all PCI devices belonging to the PE are unplugged
and plugged again, we just need unbinding/binding the affected
PCI devices with the corresponding PE without creating new one.
Some PEs are already created dynamically (SRIOV). I'd suggest to make subject
more specific.
Sure, will do.
Besides, it might require addtional resources (e.g. M32) to the
windows of the PCI bridge when unplugging current adapter, and
insert a different adapter if there is one PCI slot, which is
assumed behind root port, or the downstream bridge of the PCIE
switch behind root port. The parent bridge of the newly plugged
adapter would reject the request to add more resources, leading
to hotplug failure. For the issue, the patch extends the windows
of root port, or the upstream port of the PCIe switch behind root
port to PHB's windows when ppc_md.pcibios_setup_bridge() is called.
There is no upstream bridge for root bus, so we have to reserve
PE#, which is next to the reserved PE# in advance and fixing the
PE for root bus in ppc_md.pcibios_setup_bridge().
The patch also changes the rule assigning PE#: PE# reserved for
prefetchable 64-bits memory resource and SRIOV VFs starts from
zero while PE# for dynamic allocations starts from ioda.total_pe
reversely. It's because PE# for prefetchable 64-bits memory resource,
which is ually allocated begining with the PHB's aperatus and PE#
s/aperatus/apertures/?
I need look into Chinese-English dictionary to confirm :-)
May be it is just me but it looks like the patch moves existing bits and also
adds this dynamic PE creation, cannot it be separated somehow into smaller
patches as it is really hard to track all the changes you are making here?
It's good suggestion as I said in previous replies. Yeah, I'll see
if I can split it up to help review and bisecting.
Thanks,
Gavin
___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
