On Tuesday 01 July 2014 21:45:09 Liviu Dudau wrote: > On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 09:36:10PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Tuesday 01 July 2014 19:43:28 Liviu Dudau wrote: > > > > This still conflicts with the other allocator you have in patch 9 > > for pci_remap_iospace: nothing guarantees that the mapping is the > > same for both. > > > > Also, this is a completely pointless exercise at this moment, because > > nobody cares about the result of pci_address_to_pio on architectures > > that don't already provide this function. If we ever get a proper > > Open Firmware implementation that wants to put hardcoded PCI devices > > into DT, we can add an implementation, but for now this seems overkill. > > > > The allocator in pci_register_io_range seems reasonable, why not merge > > this function with pci_remap_iospace() as I have asked you multiple > > times before? Just make it return the io_offset so the caller can > > put that into the PCI host resources. > > Hi Arnd, > > While I agree with you that at some moment the allocators were inconsistent > wrt each other, for this version I would respectfully disagree on this. > The allocator in pci_register_io_range() only makes sure that the ranges > are not overlapping, it doesn't do any mapping whatsoever, while > pci_remap_iospace() does only an ioremap_page_range(). The idea is that > you get the offset out of pci_address_to_pio() and apply it to > pci_remap_iospace(). Ok, got it now, I'm sorry I didn't read this properly at first. Your solution looks correct to me, just using different tradeoffs to what I was expecting: You get a working pci_address_to_pio() function, which is probably never needed, but in turn you need to keep the state of each host bridge in a global list. 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
