On Jun 2, 2014, at 10:09 AM, Grant Likely <grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, 31 May 2014 20:41:04 +0200, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Saturday 31 May 2014 01:36:40 Liviu Dudau wrote: >>> We would like to be able to describe PCIe ECAM resources as >>> IORESOURCE_MEM blocks while distinguish them from standard >>> memory resources. Add an IORESOURCE_BIT entry for this case. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Liviu Dudau <Liviu.Dudau@xxxxxxx> >> >> I still don't see any value in this at all. What is the advantage >> of doing this opposed to just having a standardized 'reg' property >> for a particular compatible string? > > I'm inclined to agree. It doesn't seem appropriate to put config space > in ranges, and the host controller binding is responsible for > identifying how config space is memory mapped. > > g. I don’t agree when it comes to ECAM, but we can drop this for now until someone really does that. However, what do we do with the 2 cases that exist in upstream that are using ranges for cfg space? - k -- Employee of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
