Hi Rafael Many thanks for your reply > -----Original Message----- > From: rjwysocki@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:rjwysocki@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of > Rafael J. Wysocki > Sent: 01 April 2017 10:52 > To: zhichang.yuan > Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki; Yuanzhichang; Rafael J. Wysocki; Catalin > Marinas; Will Deacon; Rob Herring; Frank Rowand; Bjorn Helgaas; Arnd > Bergmann; linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Mark Rutland; Brian > Starkey; Olof Johansson; Lorenzo Pieralisi; Benjamin Herrenschmidt; > Linux Kernel Mailing List; ACPI Devel Maling List; Linuxarm; > devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Linux PCI; Corey Minyard; Zou Rongrong; > John Garry; Gabriele Paoloni; kantyzc@xxxxxxx; xuwei (O) > Subject: Re: [PATCH V8 5/6] ACPI: Support the probing on the devices > which apply indirect-IO > > On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 4:16 AM, zhichang.yuan > <zhichang.yuan02@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On 04/01/2017 07:02 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 8:52 AM, zhichang.yuan > >> <yuanzhichang@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> Hi, Rafael, > >>> > >>> Thanks for reviewing this! > >>> > >>> On 2017/3/31 4:31, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >>>> On Thursday, March 30, 2017 11:26:58 PM zhichang.yuan wrote: > >>>>> On some platforms(such as Hip06/Hip07), the legacy ISA/LPC > devices access I/O > >>>>> with some special host-local I/O ports known on x86. To access > the I/O > >>>>> peripherals, an indirect-IO mechanism is introduced to mapped the > host-local > >>>>> I/O to system logical/fake PIO similar the PCI MMIO on > architectures where no > >>>>> separate I/O space exists. Just as PCI MMIO, the host I/O range > should be > >>>>> registered before probing the downstream devices and set up the > I/O mapping. > >>>>> But current ACPI bus probing doesn't support these indirect-IO > hosts/devices. > >>>>> > >>>>> This patch introdueces a new ACPI handler for this device > category. Through the > >>>>> handler attach callback, the indirect-IO hosts I/O registration > is done and > >>>>> all peripherals' I/O resources are translated into logic/fake PIO > before > >>>>> starting the enumeration. > >>>> > >>>> Can you explain to me briefly what exactly this code is expected > to be doing? > >>> > >>> As you know currently for ARM architecture IO space is memory > mapped and > >>> is only used by pci devices. The port number is dynamically > allocated > >>> converting the device IO address into a PIO token: i.e. > >>> http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/drivers/acpi/pci_root.c#L745 > >>> This patch is meant to support a new class of IO host controller > >>> that are not PCI based and that still require to have the IO > addresses > >>> be translated in the same PIO token space as the PCI controller > >> > >> IOW, this is ARM-specific, right? > > > > Yes. The current host added in this patch with _HID "HISI0191" is on > ARM64. > > But the underlying mechanism is ARM-specific as well AFAICS. > > > But, I think the handler driver is architecture dependent. > > I guess you mean "independent"? That doesn't matter. > > If ARM64 is the only architecture to use it in foreseeable future > (which is the case for all I can say), it should go into acpi/arm64/ > and please ask the maintainers thereof to review it. I guess this is the case for the foreseeable future. So if my understanding is correct we should leave acpi_indirectio_scan_init() call in acpi_scan_init() and move its definition under acpi/arm64/ right? If in future other architectures needs non-pci IO controllers we may consider to move this to acpi/... Lorenzo what do you think? Could you have a look at the patchset? Many thanks Gab > > Thanks, > Rafael ��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{�����ܨ}���Ơz�j:+v�����w����ޙ��&�)ߡ�a����z�ޗ���ݢj��w�f
