Re: [PATCH 1/2] i2c: i801: Switch to iomapped register access

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 9:33 PM Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 19.03.2025 09:23, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 9:17 AM Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> On 19.03.2025 00:22, Andi Shyti wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 12:18:47AM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> >>>> Wed, Mar 12, 2025 at 08:07:23PM +0100, Heiner Kallweit kirjoitti:
> >
> >>>>> Switch to iomapped register access as a prerequisite for adding
> >>>>> support for MMIO register access.
> >>>>
> >>>> I believe that I at least discussed the similar change a few years ago or even
> >>>> proposed a one. The problem here is that *_p() variants of IO port accessors
> >>>> are not the same as non-_p ones. And commit message is kept silent about
> >>>> possible consequences of this change.
> >>>>
> >>>> So, at bare minumum it would be good to test for some period of time before
> >>>> going for it.
> >>>
> >>> How would you do it?
> >>
> >> Documentation/driver-api/device-io.rst states that the artificially delayed
> >> _p versions were needed on ISA devices. And in general I didn't find any hint
> >> that the non-delayed versions ever caused issues on PCI devices.
> >
> > At least put this in the commit message. It will show that you were aware of _p.
> >
> >> On my system using the non-delayed version works fine, but I can't say 100%
> >> that it's the same for the very first (> 25 yrs ago) chipsets supported by i801.
> >>
> >> Likely users with old systems don't run -next kernels, therefore leaving
> >> this change a full cycle in -next may not really help. We can argue that
> >> we have the -rc period for testing (and reverting if needed).
> >
> > My main concern is to make no regressions for most currently used
> > cases, that's why one cycle in Linux Next is better than none.
>
> Even ICH7 datasheet from 2012 mentions that SMBus register space is also
> memory-mapped. So all systems from at least the last 10 yrs should use MMIO
> instead of PMIO now, and therefore not be affected by switching to non-delayed
> PMIO access. This should significantly reduce the risk you're referring to.

Cool! So, can we just put a summary into the commit message of all
findings, worries (or their absence)?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko





[Index of Archives]     [Linux GPIO]     [Linux SPI]     [Linux Hardward Monitoring]     [LM Sensors]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Media]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux