Hi, On 3/5/21 5:25 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 6:14 PM Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 3/5/21 4:42 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >>> On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 3:47 PM Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> On 3/4/21 11:11 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >>>>> On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 8:36 AM Henning Schild >>>>> <henning.schild@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > ... > >>>>> Oy vey! I know what this is and let's do it differently. I have some >>>>> (relatively old) patch series I can send you privately for testing. >>>> >>>> This bit stood out the most to me too, it would be good if we can this fixed >>>> in some cleaner work. So I'm curious how things will look with Andy's work >>>> integrated. >>>> >>>> Also I don't think this should be exported. Instead this (or its replacement) >>>> should be used to get the address for an IOMEM resource to add the platform >>>> devices when they are instantiated. Then the platform-dev drivers can just >>>> use the regular functions to get their resources instead of relying on this >>>> module. >>> >>> I have published a WIP branch [1]. I have no means to test (I don't >>> know what hardware at hand I can use right now), but I made it compile >>> after 4 years of gathering dust... >> >> So I took a quick look at the following 2 commits: > > (One of the latter commits moves the code to drivers/pci/pci-p2sb.c, > do you think it's better like that? The idea is to deduplicate > __pci_bus_read_base() call) > >> "platform/x86: p2sb: New Primary to Sideband bridge support library" >> "mfd: lpc_ich: Switch to generic p2sb_bar()" >> >> And this looks good to me, although compared to the code from this >> patch-set you are missing the pci_lock_rescan_remove(); and >> pci_unlock_rescan_remove(); calls. > > Oh, indeed. > >>> Feel free to give any kind of comments or share your ideas on how it >>> can be improved (the above idea on IOMEM resource is interesting, but >>> devices are PCI, not sure how this can be done). >> >> The code added by this patch introduces a register_platform_devices() >> function which creates a bunch of platform-devices; and then the >> device-drivers for those call simatic_ipc_get_membase0() to get their >> base-address. > > Sounds like an MFD approach... Yes except that there does not seem to be a clear parent for these devices, so it is MFD-ish. IOW I'm not sure this should be changed to use the MFD framework, but I was thinking along those line myself too. Henning did you look into using the MFD framework + MFD cell descriptions to instantiate the platform-devices for you ? Regards, Hans
