On Fri, Jun 12, 2026 at 02:50:17PM +0300, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > On Wed, 29 Apr 2026, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > > > pci_resource_alignment() does not consider bridge windows special, > > yet their alignment is subject to different requirements from BAR > > alignment. > > > > Add lower bound to bridge window alignment to help callers out to > > always have large enough alignment. > > > > Signed-off-by: Ilpo Järvinen <[email protected]> > > Hi Bjorn, > > Could you please pull this change and the subsequent one, the commits in > pci/resource: > > ae09d28ecbbc ("PCI: Lower bound bridge window alignment") > cf996b886675 ("PCI: Return valid alignment for assigned resources")
Sure, I dropped these two patches from pci/resource. The rest are still heading to v7.2. Thanks! > The rest of the changes in this series seem okay and can proceed if you're > okay with keeping a partial series. > > The reason for this request is the dev->bus vs dev->subordinate issue > sashiko mentioned in its review. > > I've tried to come up with a solution to that but it has become so ugly > I have not been very happy with it. Maybe there's no other way but the > problem boils down with pci_min_window_alignment() having to be capable of > dealing two cases, each lacking one of the key pointers (bus or bridge > dev): > > 1) root bus without bus->self > 2) bridge without a subordinate bus struct (if subordinate bus' alloc > failed) > > Only way to solve that I could think of is passing both the bus and the > bridge device to pci_min_window_alignment() and the related arch side > function pcibios_window_alignment(). The ugliest parts then involve > getting a bus pointer compatible with both of those cases, like this: > > struct pci_controller *phb = pci_bus_to_host(bus ? bus : bridge->bus); > > But it's too late in the cycle now to try even that, IMO, so better to > wait to the next cycle. > > -- > i.
