On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 19:09:14 +0200 "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, Oct 04, 2015 at 09:02:04PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Saturday 03 October 2015 01:53:46 Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > > > > > > Hmm, my gut feeling tells me that your approach won't solve the problem > > > > in general. s390 PCI is just weird in many ways and it will occasionally > > > > suffer from problems like this (as do other aspects of the s390 architecture > > > > that are unlike the rest of the world). > > > > > > > > Maybe Martin and Heiko can comment on this, they may have a preference > > > > from the s390 point of view. > > > > > > Hrm, so S390 is quirky is really odd ways that no other architecture is or > > > is at least for now not expected to be ? > > > > Absolutely correct. It is the only architecture I'm aware of that tries to > > support PCI that does not use pointer dereferences for MMIO. > > So its not worth it to have a formal semantic via Kconfig for this and are > happy with the status quo of having to find out through a bot compile test > any changes in this domain fails? For my part I still do not see the value in ARCH_PCI_NON_DISJUNCTIVE. The existing GENERIC_PCI_IOMAP already allows an architecture to select the generic implementation (or not to select it). To add another Kconfig symbol and make GENERIC_PCI_IOMAP depend on it doesn't help. -- blue skies, Martin. "Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
