On 13/02/2017 15:05, zhichang.yuan wrote:
Hi, Alex,
Thanks for your review!
Sorry for the late response!
As this patch-set was two weeks ago, it must be painful to check this thread
again.
I thought John had discussed with you about most of the comments when I was
back from ten days' leave, and I have no more to supplement,
so...
But when I started the work on V7, met somethings need to clarify with you.
Please kindly check the below.
On 2017/1/31 1:12, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 01/24/2017 08:05 AM, zhichang.yuan wrote:
Low-pin-count interface is integrated into some SoCs. The accesses to those
peripherals under LPC make use of I/O ports rather than the memory mapped I/O.
To drive these devices, this patch introduces a method named indirect-IO.
In this method the in/out() accessor in include/asm-generic/io.h will be
redefined. When upper layer drivers call in/out() with those known legacy port
addresses to access the peripherals, the I/O operations will be routed to the
right hooks which are registered specific to the host device, such as LPC.
Then the hardware relevant manupulations are finished by the corresponding
host.
According to the comments on V5, this patch adds a common indirect-IO driver
which support this I/O indirection to the generic directory.
In the later pathches, some host-relevant drivers are implemented to support
the specific I/O hooks and register them.
Based on these, the upper layer drivers which depend on in/out() can work well
without any extra work or any changes.
Signed-off-by: zhichang.yuan <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Gabriele Paoloni <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: John Garry <[email protected]>
I like the extio idea. That allows us to handle all PIO requests on platforms
that don't have native PIO support via different routes depending on the region
they're in. Unfortunately we now we have 2 frameworks for handling sparse PIO
regions: One in extio, one in PCI.
Why don't we just merge the two? Most of the code that has #ifdef PCI_IOBASE
throughout the code base sounds like an ideal candidate to get migrated to
extio instead. Then we only have a single framework to worry about ...
---
include/asm-generic/io.h | 50 ++++++++++++++++
include/linux/extio.h | 85 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
include/linux/io.h | 1 +
lib/Kconfig | 8 +++
lib/Makefile | 2 +
lib/extio.c | 147 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
6 files changed, 293 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 include/linux/extio.h
create mode 100644 lib/extio.c
diff --git a/include/asm-generic/io.h b/include/asm-generic/io.h
index 7ef015e..c0d6db1 100644
--- a/include/asm-generic/io.h
+++ b/include/asm-generic/io.h
@@ -21,6 +21,8 @@
#include <asm-generic/pci_iomap.h>
+#include <linux/extio.h>
+
#ifndef mmiowb
#define mmiowb() do {} while (0)
#endif
@@ -358,51 +360,75 @@ static inline void writesq(volatile void __iomem *addr,
const void *buffer,
*/
#ifndef inb
+#ifdef CONFIG_INDIRECT_PIO
+#define inb extio_inb
+#else
#define inb inb
static inline u8 inb(unsigned long addr)
{
return readb(PCI_IOBASE + addr);
}
+#endif /* CONFIG_INDIRECT_PIO */
... we would also get rid of all of these constructs. Instead, every
architecture that doesn't implement native PIO defines would end up in extio
and we would enable it unconditionally for them.
Do you want to implement like these?
#ifndef inb
#define inb extio_inb
#endif
In this way, we don't need the CONFIG_INDIRECT_PIO and make extio as kernel
built-in.
I thought these are your ideas, right?
That's definitely one way of doing it, yes :).
You still don't need extio on architectures that have native PIO or no
PIO devices at all. So I wouldn't mind if you keep it as a config
option. That way archs that don't care can reduce their code size.
But I don't feel strongly about it either way.
Alex
