linux-imx

powerpc/64: Adjust order in pcibios_init()

The pcibios_init() function for PowerPC 64 currently calls
pci_bus_add_devices() before pcibios_resource_survey(). This means
that at boot time, when the pcibios_bus_add_device() hooks are called
by pci_bus_add_devices(), device resources have not been allocated and
they are unable to perform EEH setup, so a separate pass is needed.

This patch adjusts that order so that it will become possible to
consolidate the EEH setup work into a single location.

The only functional change is to execute pcibios_resource_survey()
(excepting ppc_md.pcibios_fixup(), see below) before
pci_bus_add_devices() instead of after it.

Because pcibios_scan_phb() and pci_bus_add_devices() are called
together in a loop, this must be broken into one loop for each call.
Then the call to pcibios_resource_survey() is moved up in between
them. This changes the ordering but because pcibios_resource_survey()
also calls ppc_md.pcibios_fixup(), that call is extracted out into
pcibios_init() to where pcibios_resource_survey() was, so that it is
not moved.

The only other caller of pcibios_resource_survey() is the PowerPC 32
version of pcibios_init(), and therefore, that is modified to call
ppc_md.pcibios_fixup() right after pcibios_resource_survey() so that
there is no functional change there at all.

The re-arrangement will cause very few side-effects because at this
stage in the boot, pci_bus_add_devices() does very little:
- pci_create_sysfs_dev_files() does nothing (no sysfs yet)
- pci_proc_attach_device() does nothing (no proc yet)
- device_attach() does nothing (no drivers yet)
This leaves only the pci_final_fixup calls, D3 support, and marking
the device as added. Of those, only the pci_final_fixup calls have the
potential to be affected by resource allocation.

The only pci_final_fixup handlers that touch resources seem to be one
for x86 (pci_amd_enable_64bit_bar()), and a PowerPC 32 platform driver
(quirk_final_uli1575()), neither of which use this pcibios_init()
function. Even if they did, it would almost certainly be a bug, under
the current ordering, to rely on or make changes to resources before
they were allocated.

Signed-off-by: Sam Bobroff <sbobroff@linux.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@ozlabs.ru>
Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/4506b0489eabd0921a3587d90bd44c7683f3472d.1565930772.git.sbobroff@linux.ibm.com