On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 11:24:21PM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote: > On Tuesday 13 September 2022 16:11:43 Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 11, 2022 at 01:20:22PM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote: > > > Lot of PCI and PCIe controllers are using standard Config Address for PCI > > > Configuration Mechanism #1 (as defined inPCI Local Bus Specification) or > > > its extended version. > > > > > > So introduce new macros PCI_CONF1_ADDRESS() and PCI_CONF1_EXT_ADDRESS() in > > > new include file linux/pci-conf1.h which can be suitable for PCI and PCIe > > > controllers which uses this type of access to PCI config space. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Pali Rohár <pali@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > include/linux/pci-conf1.h | 51 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > 1 file changed, 51 insertions(+) > > > create mode 100644 include/linux/pci-conf1.h > > > > This seems like a nice addition, but it would be nice if we could > > encapsulate it in drivers/pci. > > > > I know it's parallel to the existing include/linux/pci-ecam.h. I wish > > we could encapsulate *that* in drivers/pci, too. For pci-ecam.h, I > > think the only things that prevent that are drivers/acpi/pci_mcfg.c, > > loongarch, and a few arm64 things. > > As these macros describe original Intel x86 API, it can be used also in > arch/x86 PCI code. I would love to see that happen, too, and that could be a reason to put pci-conf.h in include/linux. But this series doesn't include that. > > I guess that's a long-winded way of saying that I think maybe we could > > put this in drivers/pci/pci.h even though the parallel ECAM stuff is > > in include/linux/pci-ecam.h. > > Well, if you like this change, let me know where to put those new > macros, into which file and in which subdirectory, and I can prepare a > new patch version. drivers/pci/pci.h > But doing all those arm64, x86, ACPI cleanup is a huge cross-tree work > which I'm really not going to do... Of course not, I didn't suggest or expect that. What I'm trying to point out is that I don't think we have very good reasons for pci-ecam.h to be public. And therefore, I don't think we need pci-conf1.h to be next to it. Unless you want to convert the arch/x86 code to use them as well. I'm not asking you to do that either, just that if you *did* do that, it would be an argument for keeping the macros where you put them. Bjorn
