Hi Arnd > -----Original Message----- > From: Arnd Bergmann [mailto:a...@arndb.de] > Sent: 08 November 2016 16:25 > To: Yuanzhichang > Cc: catalin.mari...@arm.com; will.dea...@arm.com; robh...@kernel.org; > bhelg...@google.com; mark.rutl...@arm.com; o...@lixom.net; linux-arm- > ker...@lists.infradead.org; lorenzo.pieral...@arm.com; linux- > ker...@vger.kernel.org; Linuxarm; devicet...@vger.kernel.org; linux- > p...@vger.kernel.org; linux-ser...@vger.kernel.org; miny...@acm.org; > b...@kernel.crashing.org; liviu.du...@arm.com; zourongr...@gmail.com; > John Garry; Gabriele Paoloni; zhichang.yua...@gmail.com; > kant...@163.com; xuwei (O) > Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 3/3] ARM64 LPC: LPC driver implementation on > Hip06 > > On Tuesday, November 8, 2016 11:47:09 AM CET zhichang.yuan wrote: > > + /* > > + * The first PCIBIOS_MIN_IO is reserved specifically for > indirectIO. > > + * It will separate indirectIO range from pci host bridge to > > + * avoid the possible PIO conflict. > > + * Set the indirectIO range directly here. > > + */ > > + lpcdev->io_ops.start = 0; > > + lpcdev->io_ops.end = PCIBIOS_MIN_IO - 1; > > + lpcdev->io_ops.devpara = lpcdev; > > + lpcdev->io_ops.pfin = hisilpc_comm_in; > > + lpcdev->io_ops.pfout = hisilpc_comm_out; > > + lpcdev->io_ops.pfins = hisilpc_comm_ins; > > + lpcdev->io_ops.pfouts = hisilpc_comm_outs; > > I have to look at patch 2 in more detail again, after missing a few > review > rounds. I'm still a bit skeptical about hardcoding a logical I/O port > range here, and would hope that we can just go through the same > assignment of logical port ranges that we have for PCI buses, > decoupling > the bus addresses from the linux-internal ones.
The point here is that we want to avoid any conflict/overlap between the LPC I/O space and the PCI I/O space. With the assignment above we make sure that LPC never interfere with PCI I/O space. Thanks Gab > > Arnd