Hi, Arnd, On 2016/11/10 5:34, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 12:10:43 PM CET Gabriele Paoloni wrote: >>> On Tuesday, November 8, 2016 11:47:09 AM CET zhichang.yuan wrote: >>>> + /* >>>> + * The first PCIBIOS_MIN_IO is reserved specifically for >>> indirectIO. >>>> + * It will separate indirectIO range from pci host bridge to >>>> + * avoid the possible PIO conflict. >>>> + * Set the indirectIO range directly here. >>>> + */ >>>> + lpcdev->io_ops.start = 0; >>>> + lpcdev->io_ops.end = PCIBIOS_MIN_IO - 1; >>>> + lpcdev->io_ops.devpara = lpcdev; >>>> + lpcdev->io_ops.pfin = hisilpc_comm_in; >>>> + lpcdev->io_ops.pfout = hisilpc_comm_out; >>>> + lpcdev->io_ops.pfins = hisilpc_comm_ins; >>>> + lpcdev->io_ops.pfouts = hisilpc_comm_outs; >>> >>> I have to look at patch 2 in more detail again, after missing a few >>> review >>> rounds. I'm still a bit skeptical about hardcoding a logical I/O port >>> range here, and would hope that we can just go through the same >>> assignment of logical port ranges that we have for PCI buses, >>> decoupling >>> the bus addresses from the linux-internal ones. >> >> The point here is that we want to avoid any conflict/overlap between >> the LPC I/O space and the PCI I/O space. With the assignment above >> we make sure that LPC never interfere with PCI I/O space. > > But we already abstract the PCI I/O space using dynamic registration. > There is no need to hardcode the logical address for ISA, though > I think we can hardcode the bus address to start at zero here. Do you means that we can pick up the maximal I/O address from all children's device resources?? Thanks, Zhichang > > 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
