On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 06:37:51PM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 19 March 2014 17:21:41 Liviu Dudau wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> Let me simplify the discussion here:
>
> NAK to adding yet another architecture specific implementation.
So what would be your approach for handling pci_address_to_pio() in a non-arch specific way?
unsigned long __weak pci_address_to_pio(phys_addr_t address)
{
#ifdef ARCH_HAS_IOSPACE
if (address > IO_SPACE_LIMIT)
return (unsigned long)-1;
return (unsigned long) address;
#else
struct ioresource *res;
list_for_each_entry(res, &io_list, list) {
if (address >= res->start &&
address < res->start + res->size) {
return res->start - address;
}
}
return (unsigned long)-1;
#endif
}
Either that, or you have more magic rabbits than me.
Best regards,
Liviu
>
> Arnd
>
>
--
====================
| 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
