Re: [PATCH] 2.6 SGI Altix I/O code reorganization

From: Grant Grundler <>
Date: 2004-10-07 05:54:24
thanks for ACKing the feedback.
I think there is still some confusion...

On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 02:09:54PM -0500, Colin Ngam wrote:
> > Mathew explained replacing the raw_pci_ops pointer is the Right Thing
> > and I suspect it's easier to properly implement.
> I believe we did just that.  We did not touch pci_root_ops.

Correct. The patch ignores/overides pci_root_ops with sn_pci_root_ops
(which is what I originally suggested).

Mathew's point was only raw_pci_ops needs to point at a different
set of struct pci_raw_ops (see include/linux/pci.h).

> >   I realize that's not easy to add/maintain in the arch/ia64 port though
> >   since pcibios_fixup_bus() is common code for multiple platforms.
> Yes, would anybody allow us to make a platform specific callout
> from within generic pcibios_fixup_bus()???

If it can be avoided, preferably not. But that's up to Jesse/Tony I think.

> >   It means we are telling PCI subsystem to walk root busses that don't
> >   exist in all configurations. I hope there are no nasty side effects
> >   from that.
> Not at all.  If you look at the loop, sn_pci_fixup_bus(0 gets called for 0 -
> PCI_BUSES_TO_SCAN but if the bus does not exist,

Can you quote the bit of the patch which implements "if the bus does not
exist" check?
I can't find it.

> One favour.  Would you agree to letting this patch be included by Tony
> and we will come up with another patch to fix the 2 obvious items listed
> above?  It will be great to avoid spinning this big patch.

I think that's up to Jesse/Tony.
I don't "own" any of the code in question.
Just trying to undo the confusion I caused.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Received on Wed Oct 6 16:01:30 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-08-02 09:20:31 EST