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 devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html