On Sat, 2011-05-21 at 14:31 +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> On 05/21/2011 12:51 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > Currently the ioport implementation is based on a USHRT_MAX length
> > array of ptrs to ioport_operations.
> >
> > Instead, use an interval rbtree to map the ioports to
> > ioport_operations.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> ...
> > -static struct ioport_operations *ioport_ops[USHRT_MAX];
> > -
> > void ioport__register(u16 port, struct ioport_operations *ops, int count)
> > {
> > - int i;
> > + struct ioport_entry *entry;
> >
> > - for (i = 0; i < count; i++)
> > - ioport_ops[port + i] = ops;
> > + entry = ioport_search(&ioport_tree, port);
> > + if (entry)
> > + rb_int_erase(&ioport_tree, &entry->node);
> > +
>
> Hi Sasha, if I understand this correct we're simply drop old registartion, right? I think
> it should not be like that, if one port get used for several drivers/purposes we need a
> ref-counting, but at moment I think we simply should not allow to re-register port without
> previously unregister it. Or I miss something?
Currently we register some ports as dummy ports in the ioport
initialization, and re-register them once they get someone who can use
them (for example, serial device).
Not allowing ports to re-register would mean we can't reassign ports to
serial console when the serial console module gets loaded.
--
Sasha.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
