On Monday 10 March 2014 14:45:19 Liviu Dudau wrote:
>
> So, if I understand you correctly, you would prefer to fail here and hence
> stop the
> parsing for the x86, rather than pretending everything is OK and going
> through the
> motions?
Yes, on x86 it is clearly a bug if we end up calling th
On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 12:24:12AM +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 06 March 2014, Liviu Dudau wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 10:30:09PM +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 04 March 2014, Liviu Dudau wrote:
> > > > +int __weak pci_register_io_range(phys_addr_t addr, resource_s
On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 01:24:12AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 06 March 2014, Liviu Dudau wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 10:30:09PM +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 04 March 2014, Liviu Dudau wrote:
> > > > +int __weak pci_register_io_range(phys_addr_t addr, resource_s
On Thursday 06 March 2014, Liviu Dudau wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 10:30:09PM +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Tuesday 04 March 2014, Liviu Dudau wrote:
> > > +int __weak pci_register_io_range(phys_addr_t addr, resource_size_t size)
> > > +{
> > > + return 0;
> > > +}
> > > +
> >
> >
On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 10:30:09PM +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 04 March 2014, Liviu Dudau wrote:
> > +int __weak pci_register_io_range(phys_addr_t addr, resource_size_t size)
> > +{
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
>
> How about returning an error here? You don't actually register t
On Tuesday 04 March 2014, Liviu Dudau wrote:
> +int __weak pci_register_io_range(phys_addr_t addr, resource_size_t size)
> +{
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
How about returning an error here? You don't actually register the range.
Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubs
Some architectures do not share x86 simple view of the I/O space and
instead use a range of addresses that map to external devices. For PCI,
these ranges can be expressed by OF bindings in a device tree file.
Introduce a pci_register_io_range() helper function that can be used
by the architecture
