From: Grant Grundler <grundler@cup.hp.com>
To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org,
"David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: IO issues vs. multiple busses
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 10:05:17 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200103031805.KAA01024@milano.cup.hp.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 03 Mar 2001 03:45:22 PST." <19350125201706.1788@mailhost.mipsys.com>
Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
...
> The reason why I'm getting this problem on the public place (again ?)
> is that we are now faced with people who want to put video cards in both
> AGP & PCI busses, those cards requiring accesses to some legacy VGA IOs
> on each of their busses.
I don't see any way of getting around virtualizing the IO port space.
(by that I mean encoding more info in the upper IO port address bits)
...
> Right. That's my opinion too. But it's difficult to make everybody agree
> on it ;) Even the simple mechanism Paul Mackerras did so that IOs to
> non-existent devices don't kill the kernel (very small overhead) caused
> some barking ;)
Well, make it a CONFIG_XXX option for your arch and the people who
insist on doing complicated things will have to live with complicated
solutions. I don't have a better idea.
> It's my understanding that you use high
> bits of the IO address to store the HBA number and then use that to call
> the proper access functions.
Correct. For some reason, I thought alpha (or sparc? hose number?) did this
as well.
> That would solve the PCI IO problem (PCI cards
> requiring IOs to BAR-mapped regions), but I don't see how it can fix the
> problem of a card accessing legacy VGA addresses, except if you hand-fixed
> the video drivers to fill those high bits before doing IOs.
That's right. That happens after the bus walk but before drivers see
the device in pci_fixup_bus().
> If I understand things correctly, that mean that each card, instead of
> accessing the legacy VGA port 0xpp, would instead access 0x00bb00pp
> (or whatever mangling you use to stuff the HBA number).
right.
> The question is then to decide is all ISA busses are on a matching PCI bus,
> in which case a simple unsigned pci_get_bus_io_base(int bus_no) -like functio
> n
> would be enough, or if we want a scheme that supports other ISA-like busses ?
I don't know enough about your arch to answer that.
> We could eventually decide to support only PCI, and additionally declare a
> fake PCI bus for an ISA bus not matched to a PCI bus, whose config ops would
> return no device in any slot.
> Do we agree on this ?
In theory yes. But davem already wrote:
| There is no 'fake' ISA bus number you need. There is a 'real' one,
| the one on which the PCI-->ISA bridge lives, why not use that one
| :-)
> Well, from the driver point of view, I think it _do_ exist. Basically, the
> driver will do inb/outb & friends. Whatever those function do in reality is
> arch-dependant.
Right. I meant the underlying implementation of inb/outb.
> But we agree on the fact that in order for those functions to know on which
> bus to tap, an additional information must be "cooked" inside the IO address
> passed to them.
yes.
> Additionally, the same problem is true for ISA memory, when it exist
> obviously.
Really? I expected ISA memory to look like reguler uncacheable memory
and the drivers would simply dereference the address. But I'm not an
expert on how ISA busses work...
> With those two simple functions, we could at least
[ deleted list ]
I have to defer to someone like Alan Cox or Davem or someone who has
a clue about VGA. I don't. Like sparc, parisc doesn't support VGA.
Alan is the only person I know of who's even considered plugging a VGA
card into a parisc box.
> The only thing that's annoying me in the fact that we keep tied to PCI
> is that in various embedded system, there is one (or more) ISA-like
> bus hanging around with legacy devices and no PCI, and abstracting a
In short, where the HW doesn't route transactions down the right bus
adapter, the SW has too.
> bit the notion of IO bus would have helped. But it seem that now, more
> embedded systems are also going toward in-CPU IOs anyway, along with
> eventually a PCI bus for the most expensive ones, so it may finally
> not be an issue in the long term.
It sounds like the HW will do (some of?) the routing.
grant
Grant Grundler
parisc-linux {PCI|IOMMU|SMP} hacker
+1.408.447.7253
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-03-03 18:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <19350125063652.28310@mailhost.mipsys.com>
2001-03-02 18:43 ` IO issues vs. multiple busses Grant Grundler
2001-03-03 2:45 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2001-03-03 15:07 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2001-03-04 19:55 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2001-03-03 18:05 ` Grant Grundler [this message]
2001-03-04 20:04 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2001-03-05 10:52 ` Gabriel Paubert
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200103031805.KAA01024@milano.cup.hp.com \
--to=grundler@cup.hp.com \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=davem@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.