----- Original Message -----
From: "Jun Sun" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "Bradley D. LaRonde" <email@example.com>
Cc: <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 5:38 PM
Subject: [Linux-mips-kernel]Re: PATCH: pci_auto bridge support
> "Bradley D. LaRonde" wrote:
> > I considered that, but since only this small chuck of run-once surrogate
> > bios autoconfig code needs to know, I figured better keep it separate.
> I would vote to put it inside the hose structure:
> . It makes a workaround look like a real fix. :-)
> . In other implementations of pci_auto, hose is the private sys data of a
> dev. Having a bus number inside is very useful (e.g., pci_ops can tell
> it is type0 of type1 configuration based on the bus number rather than a
> NULL parent bus pointer). In the future, all pci_auto should be combined
> the pci driver. So that is probably the right direction to go.
> I think hose may evolve to be the data structure that represents the
> of PCI buses. It should have more uses in the future (e.g., the standard
> routing across PCI-PCI bridges).
Isn't the bus topology already adequately represented in the pci_dev and
I look at the pci autoconfig stuff as a bios replacement. The fact that we
can use some of the same structures and functions to help us implement it is
a bonus, but not a mandate to mess with the existing model.
Isn't Linux already handling PCI-PCI bridges and multiple PCI channles fine
already, or has our autoconfig code exposed some existing non-arch-specific