On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 05:24:13PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > Hi Guenter, > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 07:01:03PM +0100, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 07:41:12AM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > > > > > > > I'd like res->flags to reflect the capabilities of the hardware, not > > > > > whether the window is currently enabled. > > > > > > > > > Flag bits seem to be all taken. Could we use IORESOURCE_DISABLED for that > > > > purpose, or could that cause conflicts elsewhere ? > > > > > > Yes, I think IORESOURCE_DISABLED would be appropriate for any I/O windows > > > below a host bridge that doesn't support I/O space. > > > > > I integrated Lorenzo's patch and tried to get this working. > > Thanks. How do you want to proceed with this ? Are you taking my patch > and post it along with your updated series ? We need to extend test > coverage to platforms we could not test on, as you know my series > affects all archs but SPARC (I mean it should *not* affect them, this > has to be tested though, I do not have the HW needed, your coverage > for x86 and PowerPC is great but I do not think it can be deemed > sufficient). > > Please let me know, thanks ! Any comment on this ? I will have to remove the bridge resource claiming from my patch according to Ben's concerns for PowerPC, which requires a v3. How do you want me to go on with this ? Thanks, Lorenzo > > Problem is that the use of a resource is widely checked with "!res->flags" > > throughout the code. That would have to be changed to something like > > "(!res->flags || (res->flags & IORESOURCE_DISABLED))" whereever it is used. > > > > I tried going with "!res->flags" instead, but have not been able to get it > > to work realiably; it is just very difficult to distinguish if "!res->flags" > > means that the resource has not yet been assigned or if it means that it is not > > supported. > > > > The correct approach, in my opinion, would be to go with IORESOURCE_DISABLED > > and make the necessary changes whereever needed. Effectively this means to > > replace the "!res->flags" check with something like pci_res_used() [ pick > > your preferred name ] and define it as > > > > #define pci_res_used(res) ((res)->flags && !((res)->flags & IORESOURCE_DISABLED)) > > > > Is that the right direction ? > > > > Thanks, > > Guenter > > -- 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
