RE: [PATCH v4] Kconfig: introduce HAS_IOPORT option and select it as necessary
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: "'Arnd Bergmann'" <arnd@xxxxxxxx>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx>, "Niklas Schnelle" <schnelle@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@xxxxxxxxxx>, Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Matt Turner <mattst88@xxxxxxxxx>, Russell King <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx>, Will Deacon <will@xxxxxxxxxx>, Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@xxxxxxxxxx>, WANG Xuerui <kernel@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Geert Uytterhoeven" <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Michal Simek <monstr@xxxxxxxxx>, "Thomas Bogendoerfer" <tsbogend@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "James E . J . Bottomley" <James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Helge Deller <deller@xxxxxx>, Michael Ellerman <mpe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxxxx>, Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@xxxxxxxxxx>, Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@xxxxxxxxxx>, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Albert Ou <aou@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Yoshinori Sato <ysato@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Rich Felker <dalias@xxxxxxxx>, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "David S . Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>, Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "x86@xxxxxxxxxx" <x86@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [PATCH v4] Kconfig: introduce HAS_IOPORT option and select it as necessary
- From: David Laight <David.Laight@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2023 21:36:44 +0000
- Accept-language: en-GB, en-US
- Cc: "linux-m68k@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-m68k@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-ia64@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-ia64@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-pci@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-pci@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-mips@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-mips@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "sparclinux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <sparclinux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-riscv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-riscv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Linux-Arch <linux-arch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-sh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-sh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "loongarch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <loongarch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Mauro Carvalho Chehab" <mchehab@xxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-parisc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-parisc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-alpha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-alpha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "linuxppc-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linuxppc-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- In-reply-to: <d8686aaf-f12e-446b-9a80-335bb4266a4d@app.fastmail.com>
- References: <20230323163354.1454196-1-schnelle@linux.ibm.com> <248a41a536d5a3c9e81e8e865b34c5bf74cd36d4.camel@linux.ibm.com> <B1EC1AC7-6BB5-4B66-B171-24687C3CBFB3@zytor.com> <d8686aaf-f12e-446b-9a80-335bb4266a4d@app.fastmail.com>
From: Linuxppc-dev Arnd Bergmann
> Sent: 05 April 2023 21:32
>
> On Wed, Apr 5, 2023, at 22:00, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > On April 5, 2023 8:12:38 AM PDT, Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>On Thu, 2023-03-23 at 17:33 +0100, Niklas Schnelle wrote:
> >>> We introduce a new HAS_IOPORT Kconfig option to indicate support for I/O
> >>> Port access. In a future patch HAS_IOPORT=n will disable compilation of
> >>> the I/O accessor functions inb()/outb() and friends on architectures
> >>> which can not meaningfully support legacy I/O spaces such as s390.
> >>> >>
> >>Gentle ping. As far as I can tell this hasn't been picked to any tree
> >>sp far but also hasn't seen complains so I'm wondering if I should send
> >>a new version of the combined series of this patch plus the added
> >>HAS_IOPORT dependencies per subsystem or wait until this is picked up.
> >
> > You need this on a system supporting not just ISA but also PCI.
> >
> > Typically on non-x86 architectures this is simply mapped into a memory window.
>
> I'm pretty confident that the list is correct here, as the HAS_IOPORT
> symbol is enabled exactly for the architectures that have a way to
> map the I/O space. PCIe generally works fine without I/O space, the
> only exception are drivers for devices that were around as early PCI.
Isn't there a difference between cpu that have inb()/outb() (probably
only x86?) and architectures (well computer designs) that can generate
PCI 'I/O' cycles by some means.
It isn't even just PCI I/O cycles, I've used an ARM cpu (SA1100)
that mapped a chuck of physical address space onto PCMCIA I/O cycles.
If the hardware can map a PCI 'IO' bar into normal kernel address
space then the bar and accesses can be treated exactly like a memory bar.
This probably leaves x86 as the outlier where you need (IIRC) io_readl()
and friends that can generate in/out instructions for those accesses.
There are also all the x86 ISA devices which need in/out instructions.
But (with the likely exception of the UART) they are pretty much
platform specific.
So, to my mind at least, HAS_IOPORT is just the wrong question.
David
-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
[Index of Archives]
[Linux Kernel]
[Sparc Linux]
[DCCP]
[Linux ARM]
[Yosemite News]
[Linux SCSI]
[Linux x86_64]
[Linux for Ham Radio]