On Thursday 06 February 2014 11:00:16 Will Deacon wrote: > On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 10:54:42AM +0000, Liviu Dudau wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 08:54:03AM +0000, Anup Patel wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 10:23 PM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > This is another reason why I prefer the reg property for specifying the configuration > > space address range. I don't see a straight way of making the distinction you > > need using the ranges property. > > Well if we need to distinguish cam vs ecam, then adding ioport to the mix > should be (conceptually) easy and I don't think it would involve the "reg" > property. > > However, I'm not planning to add ioport support myself. Maybe it's better to have separate compatible strings for these cases, can call it "pci-ecam-generic" or "pci-cam-generic" to have an easy distinction. Or we just use the "reg-names" property so the device can have a "cam" register or an "ecam" register or both. I don't think we can make the driver generic enough for x86 as Anup suggests though, since x86 has its own set of quirks to deal with the various PCI config space access methods. 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
