On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 03:25:50PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: >... >> Well, it will become necessary as old code gets dismantled and converted towards >> this patchset. To give you an example that I'm familiar with, for arch/arm the >> host bridge drivers have moved into drivers/pci/host, but they still depend/use >> the bios32 infrastructure that takes care of setting up the irq. When they switch >> to my version they would have to go and debug the "irq not being assigned" issue >> and it is quite likely that some of the people doing the conversion will complain >> about my code rather than understanding the issue. What I'm trying to do is to >> make switching to my patchset as painless as possible, with a cleanup to remove >> redundant operations coming after the switchover. > >While the goal is fine, until we see a common pattern for what needs to >go into pcibios_add_device() I think we should have an arm64-specific >implementation (and probably an arm32 specific one as well). I can see >powerpc uses it for setting the DMA ops. Would we have a similar need on >arm64 to choose between coherent and non-coherent dma_ops? Liviu, I have the same feeling with Catalin. An arm64-specific implementation of pcibios_add_device() would be better. No more other concerns from my side. > >Also at some point we'll get ACPI support, so I'm not sure what we do >with assigning the dev->irq here but definitely of_* functions won't >work. > >-- >Catalin -- Richard Yang Help you, Help me -- 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
