On (Tue) 20 Jan 2015 [13:09:55], Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 04:10:40PM +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
> > On (Wed) 14 Jan 2015 [19:27:35], Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > Some devices might not implement config space access
> > > (e.g. remoteproc used not to - before 3.9).
> > > virtio/console needs config space access so make it
> > > fail gracefully if not there.
> >
> > Do we know any such devices? Wondering what prompted this patch. If
> > it's just theoretical, I'd rather let it be like this, and pull this
> > in when there's a device that doesn't have config space.
>
> Yes, with virtio 1.0 config space can be in a separate BAR now. If
> that's not enabled by BIOS (e.g. out of space), we won't have config
> space.
I'm still not sure whether we should pull in this patch before
actually seeing a failure.
You do have a dev_err which tells why the probe failed, so it's an
acceptable compromise I suppose.
> > Also, just the console functionality (i.e. F_MULTIPORT is unset) is
> > available w/o config space access.
>
> Supporting this by gracefully disabling F_MULTIPORT
> would require getting this info from driver before
> features are finalized.
> Alternatively, check F_MULTIPORT and only fail if set?
> Let me know, I'll cook up a patch.
Yes, failing only if F_MULTIPORT is set is a better option (if we have
to fail).
> > In fact, getting this patch in
> > would mean remoteproc wouldn't even run in its pre-config days...
>
> It seems to have get callback unconditionally now - or did I miss
> something?
What I meant was remoteproc doesn't depend on the config space, only
uses the console functionality. If remoteproc devices didn't expose a
config space, this patch would cause it to lose its console
functionality for no apparent reason.
Amit
--
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/
