Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] Pass resources to pci_create_bus() and fix MIPS PCI resources

[Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>]

On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 10:50 PM, Deng-Cheng Zhu <dczhu@mips.com> wrote:
> Hi, Bjorn
>
>
> Thanks for your constructive review.
>
>> One logistical issue here is that the first patch touches several
>> architectures at once, which puts Jesse in a bit of a pinch.  If he
>> applies it, there's always the possibility that an arch patch will
>> conflict with it, which makes merging harder.
>
> In case the conflicts happen, the effort to resolve them should be
> trivial (a matter of an extra NULL argument), I suppose. Also, the odds
> of other incoming arch patches making a reference to pci_create_bus()
> should not be great.
>
>> It might be easier if, instead of changing the pci_create_bus()
>> interface, you added a new one (it could call pci_create_bus() then
>> replace the resources, so the implementation could still be mostly
>> shared.)  We already have a plethora of "create bus" methods
>> (pci_create_bus(), pci_scan_bus_parented(), pci_scan_bus()), but if
>> you added a pci_create_root_bus() or something similar, maybe we could
>> try to converge on it and obsolete the others.
>>
>> Then the first patch would touch only the PCI core, and the second
>> would touch only MIPS, which would make merging more straightforward.
>>
>
> Hmm.. Adding a wrapper of pci_create_bus() does leave other
> architectures alone for this merging. But before all of them converge on
> it (a long way to go), the wrapper is adding naming confusion to the
> PCI core. Personally I think the current low-level transparent change to
> pci_create_bus() is appropriate enough. Does anybody have comments?
>
>
> Deng-Cheng

Just to be clear, I'm fine with it either way, as long as Jesse and
the arch maintainers are OK with it.