On Mon, 2 Jun 2014 10:40:30 -0500, Kumar Gala <galak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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 donâ??t agree when it comes to ECAM, but we can drop this for now > until someone really does that. Okay, humor me then. What would a ranges property look like for ECAM? Do you have an example? I believe there would need to be a separate entry for each and every PCI device on the bus to get the config spaces to be contiguous. > However, what do we do with the 2 cases that exist in upstream that > are using ranges for cfg space? Ignore them in the core code? Make the specific host controller handle them I would think. g. -- 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
