On 19 April 2017 at 09:47, Michael Ellerman <m...@ellerman.id.au> wrote:
> Bjorn Helgaas <bhelg...@google.com> writes:
>
>> On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 4:36 PM, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelg...@google.com> wrote:
>>> From: Yongji Xie <elohi...@gmail.com>
>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/pci-ioda.c
>>> b/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/pci-ioda.c
>>> index 6901a06da2f9..b724487cbd0f 100644
>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/pci-ioda.c
>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/pci-ioda.c
>>> @@ -3287,6 +3287,11 @@ static void pnv_pci_setup_bridge(struct pci_bus
>>> *bus, unsigned long type)
>>> }
>>> }
>>>
>>> +static resource_size_t pnv_pci_default_alignment(struct pci_dev *pdev)
>>> +{
>>> + return PAGE_SIZE;
>>> +}
>>
>> Is it necessary that pcibios_default_alignment() take a pci_dev
>> pointer?
>
> It's not necessary given the current implementation, obviously.
>
> But it did strike me as a good idea to pass it in case we ever want to
> do anything device specific in future.
>
>> I'd like this better if it were:
>>
>> resource_size_t pcibios_default_alignment(void) { ... }
>>
>> because the last patch relies on the assumption that all resources of
>> *all* devices will be realigned to the same alignment.
>
> But I guess that precludes doing anything device specific, at least
> without further changes. So in that case it would be better if the API
> didn't include the pci_dev.
>
> Hopefully Yongji can confirm that there were no plans to use the
> pci_dev in future patches.
>
Yes, seems like pci_dev pointer doesn't match the assumption
that all resources will be realigned to the same alignment. It's OK
to me to remove it.
Thanks,
Yongji
