On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 01:56:19PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 06:05:25PM +0000, Liviu Dudau wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 05:38:21PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 06:05:27PM +0000, Liviu Dudau wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 05:38:08PM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > > > On Friday 14 March 2014, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > > > > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 03:34:18PM +0000, Liviu Dudau wrote:
> > > > > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/pci.c
> > > > > > [...]
> > > > > > > +int pci_register_io_range(phys_addr_t address, resource_size_t
> > > > > > > size)
> > > > > > [...]
> > > > > > > +unsigned long pci_address_to_pio(phys_addr_t address)
> > > > > > [...]
> > > > > > > +void pcibios_fixup_bus(struct pci_bus *bus)
> > > > > > [ actually most of this file ]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Maybe it was raised before already but can we have __weak generic
> > > > > > definitions of these functions? They don't seem to be arm64
> > > > > > specific in
> > > > > > any way.
> > > [...]
> > > > Catalin, if you are happy to ask for ACKs from all arch maintainers
> > > > that might get
> > > > affected by our custom version of pci_address_to_pio() before you can
> > > > pull PCI support
> > > > for arm64 then I can propose a new patchset.
> > >
> > > You don't need to change the other architectures, that's the point of a
> > > __weak definition, it will be automatically overridden. If you want, you
> > > can even place a GENERIC_PCI or whatever config option that is only
> > > selected by arm64 for the time being.
> >
> > pci_address_to_pio() is alread __weak. My patch was adding the arm64
> > version of it. Adding
> > an #ifdef GENERIC_PCI to the __weak implementation is not just a temporary
> > solution.
>
> Ah, I start to understand what you mean, pci_address_to_pio() is already
> defined as __weak in drivers/of/address.c. So the reason we redefine it
> on arm64 is that it uses the io_list resources which are populated by
> pci_register_io_range(). Do you see any other architecture using a
> similar logic (that could be shared)?
All architectures that memory map the PCI IO range should be supported by my
version of
pci_address_to_pio(). But that still leaves the x86 and those architectures
that have
separate IO space or map it 1:1 into CPU address space to carry a different
version (which
the current "generic" weak version catters for).
>
> Any other functions in this file that could be shared (and are not
> __weak already)?
A version of the pci_register_io_range() that uses part of pci_ioremap_io()
(the calculation
of io_offset part).
My ultimate point is that no matter how long we argue about the shape of the
functions that
I've added into arch/arm64/kernel/pci.c I don't think we can get away without
having that
file, or at least not in the first phase if we want speedy integration into
mainline.
Best regards,
Liviu
>
> --
> Catalin
--
====================
| I would like to |
| fix the world, |
| but they're not |
| giving me the |
\ source code! /
---------------
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
