On 06/24/2014 12:08 PM, Murali Karicheri wrote:
Pratyush,
On 06/23/2014 12:50 PM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] Add Keystone PCIe controller driver
On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 03:05:30AM +0800, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Friday 20 June 2014 13:11:37 Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
Arnd suggestion was to have the version 3.65 code in generic place
since
its IP specific and just in case some other vendor using the same
version
can leverage the code.
Sorry, I do not follow PCIe mailing list these days, doing something else
now. So coming to this topic a bit delayed.
My Apologies for the email format as I mysteriously lost this email and
had to resort to a forwarded email to respond to this.
Let us have the discussion on this thread as I lost the original emails.
Concern here seems toe really those name of the files. I can't think of
any other appropriate name.
We should definitely keep the version in the DT "compatible" strings
wherever we know it. Regarding a better file name, I have no idea.
In my opinion, we do not need any of dw-v3_65 files, as code in these
files will not be usable by other vendors.
Anything which is implemented in application space, will not be same
across all IP users. For example, MSI0_IRQ_ENABLE_SET has been defined
at offset 0x108 in keystone PCIe application space.Other vendor may
not have this register at the same offset. Moreover, other vendors are
not even obliged to implement MSI Enable signals in same way, so
internal bit definition of the register may change.
Therefore code is not reusable if all register offset and bit
definitions are not same across vendors. So, in case of DW driver none
of the code which are accessed using va_app_base should go to common
area.
I think based on the response far on this issue, it is best to keep
the Application specific code as part of Keystone driver and in
future if there is any driver that has similar application register
implemented. we can refactor the code and re-use.
My V3 will revert back to implementation similar to RFC. Also since this
is individual h/w specific, there is no no need for a compatibility as
well. Will use keystone specific compatibility string for this.
Arnd, hope this is fine. Please respond if you still think a
compatibility string is needed.
On a second thought, I think it is better to keep the compatibility
string to differentiate the h/w and do any old h/w specific initialization.
Thanks and regards,
Murali
Murali
Pratyush
Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
