From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
To: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>
Cc: Sinan Kaya <okaya@codeaurora.org>,
linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, Zhou Wang <wangzhou1@hisilicon.com>,
Phil Edworthy <phil.edworthy@renesas.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] ARM/ARM64 PCI_PROBE_ONLY platforms
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 17:25:38 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160129232538.GH12965@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160120181003.GF13437@red-moon>
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 06:10:03PM +0000, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> To do that, we must claim resources on PCI_PROBE_ONLY systems, but
> I know for certain Bjorn does not like the idea (I let you trawl
> the archives - at least he does not accept the idea of claiming
> resources ONLY on PCI_PROBE_ONLY systems, he thinks we should
> always claim resources regardless of that flag and fall-back to
> reassigning them in case claiming fails. That's perfectly reasonable,
> at least on systems with FW initializing PCI). The problem is dealing
> with legacy, so switching to resources claiming by default is a tad
> complicated, at least for testing (code is easy to implement).
I'd like to think of PCI_PROBE_ONLY basically as "setting
IORESOURCE_PCI_FIXED for every BAR", i.e., we can do everything we
normally do *except* write to the BAR (of course we have to write to
it to size the BAR during enumeration, but we have to restore the
original value).
I don't think PCI_PROBE_ONLY should have anything to do with the
iomem_resource and ioport_resource trees. /proc/iomem and
/proc/ioports should still contain every resource we know about,
regardless of whether PCI_PROBE_ONLY is set or not.
Bjorn
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-01-29 23:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-01-20 16:04 [RFC] ARM/ARM64 PCI_PROBE_ONLY platforms Lorenzo Pieralisi
2016-01-20 16:13 ` Sinan Kaya
2016-01-20 18:10 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2016-01-20 18:15 ` Sinan Kaya
2016-01-29 23:26 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2016-01-22 16:28 ` Phil Edworthy
2016-01-25 17:51 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2016-01-28 17:27 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2016-01-29 12:02 ` Gabriele Paoloni
2016-01-29 6:32 ` Pratyush Anand
2016-01-29 23:25 ` Bjorn Helgaas [this message]
2016-02-01 16:28 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2016-02-01 21:19 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2016-01-29 23:06 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2016-01-30 0:14 ` Sinan Kaya
2016-01-30 13:30 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2016-01-30 17:51 ` Okaya
2016-02-01 15:25 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2016-02-01 21:12 ` Bjorn Helgaas
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=20160129232538.GH12965@localhost \
--to=helgaas@kernel.org \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com \
--cc=okaya@codeaurora.org \
--cc=phil.edworthy@renesas.com \
--cc=wangzhou1@hisilicon.com \
/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.