On Wed, 2013-09-18 at 19:02 +0800, Minghuan Lian wrote:
> @@ -592,6 +719,7 @@ int fsl_pci_mcheck_exception(struct pt_regs *regs)
> #if defined(CONFIG_FSL_SOC_BOOKE) || defined(CONFIG_PPC_86xx)
>
> struct device_node *fsl_pci_primary;
> +extern const struct of_device_id fsl_pci_ids[];
Externs go in headers.
> -static int fsl_pci_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> +static int __init fsl_pci_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> {
> int ret;
> - struct device_node *node;
> + struct fsl_pci *pci;
> +
> + if (!of_device_is_available(pdev->dev.of_node)) {
> + dev_warn(&pdev->dev, "disabled\n");
> + return -ENODEV;
> + }
This should be dev_dbg().
> -#ifdef CONFIG_PM
> -static int fsl_pci_resume(struct device *dev)
> +static int __exit fsl_pci_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
Why __exit? What happens if someone unbinds the PCI controller via
sysfs?
> +/*
> + * Structure of a PCI controller (host bridge)
> + */
> +struct fsl_pci {
> + struct list_head node;
> + int is_pcie;
bool is_pcie;
> +/* Return link status 0-> link, 1-> no link */
> +int fsl_pci_check_link(struct fsl_pci *pci);
bool
> +
> +/*
> + * The fsl_arch_* functions are arch hooks. Those functions are
> + * implemented as weak symbols so that they can be overridden by
> + * architecture specific code if needed.
> + */
> +
> +/* Return PCI64 DMA offset */
> +u64 fsl_arch_pci64_dma_offset(void);
Is this always guaranteed to exist?
> +/* Register PCI/PCIe controller to architecture system */
> +int __weak fsl_arch_pci_sys_register(struct fsl_pci *pci);
> +
> +/* Remove PCI/PCIe controller from architecture system */
> +void __weak fsl_arch_pci_sys_remove(struct fsl_pci *pci);
Why do these need to be weak? Won't there be exactly one implementation
per supported arch?
-Scott
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
