On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 2:56 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Monday 22 September 2014 12:43:17 Liviu Dudau wrote: >> > >> > From e798af4fc2f664d1aff7e863489b8298f90e716e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >> > From: Robert Richter <rrichter@xxxxxxxxxx> >> > Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 10:46:01 +0200 >> > Subject: [PATCH] OF: PCI: Fix creation of mem-mapped pci host bridges >> > >> > The pci host bridge was not created if io_base was not set when >> > calling of_pci_get_host_bridge_resources(). This is esp. the case for >> > mem-mapped io (IORESOURCE_MEM). This patch fixes this. Function >> > parameter io_base is optional now. >> >> I think the message is misleading. What you want to do is make io_base >> optional for the case where the PCI host bridge only expects to have only >> IORESOURCE_MEM ranges and doesn't care about IORESOURCE_IO ones. >> >> As I'm going to touch this area again to address a comment from Bjorn, >> do you mind if I roll this patch into mine with your Signed-off-by and >> the mention that you have made io_base optional? > > I think the best way to deal with this is to move the check for > io_base down into the place where it is used: As long as the DT only > specifies IORESOURCE_MEM windows, we don't need to look at io_base, > but if the host controller driver does not support IORESOURCE_IO > while the DT specifies it, I guess it would be nice to return an > error. The DT may specify it, but the h/w could be broken in some way so the host driver chooses to ignore it. I don't think we should force the host driver to provide a pointer in that case. Also, would we want it added to the resource list if it is not going to be used? Rob -- 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
