From: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org>
To: Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@kernel.org>
Cc: "Lorenzo Pieralisi" <lpieralisi@kernel.org>,
"Kishon Vijay Abraham I" <kishon@kernel.org>,
"Shawn Lin" <shawn.lin@rock-chips.com>,
"Krzysztof Wilczyński" <kw@linux.com>,
"Bjorn Helgaas" <bhelgaas@google.com>,
"Heiko Stuebner" <heiko@sntech.de>,
linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, "Rob Herring" <robh@kernel.org>,
"Krzysztof Kozlowski" <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
"Conor Dooley" <conor+dt@kernel.org>,
devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
"Rick Wertenbroek" <rick.wertenbroek@gmail.com>,
"Wilfred Mallawa" <wilfred.mallawa@wdc.com>,
"Niklas Cassel" <cassel@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/18] PCI: endpoint: Introduce pci_epc_map_align()
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2024 14:51:14 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240403092114.GG25309@thinkpad> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <eb580d64-1110-479a-9a0b-c2f1eacd23e7@kernel.org>
On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 04:54:32PM +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote:
> On 4/3/24 16:45, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 30, 2024 at 01:19:12PM +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote:
> >> Some endpoint controllers have requirements on the alignment of the
> >> controller physical memory address that must be used to map a RC PCI
> >> address region. For instance, the rockchip endpoint controller uses
> >> at most the lower 20 bits of a physical memory address region as the
> >> lower bits of an RC PCI address. For mapping a PCI address region of
> >> size bytes starting from pci_addr, the exact number of address bits
> >> used is the number of address bits changing in the address range
> >> [pci_addr..pci_addr + size - 1].
> >>
> >> For this example, this creates the following constraints:
> >> 1) The offset into the controller physical memory allocated for a
> >> mapping depends on the mapping size *and* the starting PCI address
> >> for the mapping.
> >> 2) A mapping size cannot exceed the controller windows size (1MB) minus
> >> the offset needed into the allocated physical memory, which can end
> >> up being a smaller size than the desired mapping size.
> >>
> >> Handling these constraints independently of the controller being used in
> >> a PCI EP function driver is not possible with the current EPC API as
> >> it only provides the ->align field in struct pci_epc_features.
> >> Furthermore, this alignment is static and does not depend on a mapping
> >> pci address and size.
> >>
> >> Solve this by introducing the function pci_epc_map_align() and the
> >> endpoint controller operation ->map_align to allow endpoint function
> >> drivers to obtain the size and the offset into a controller address
> >> region that must be used to map an RC PCI address region. The size
> >> of the physical address region provided by pci_epc_map_align() can then
> >> be used as the size argument for the function pci_epc_mem_alloc_addr().
> >> The offset into the allocated controller memory can be used to
> >> correctly handle data transfers. Of note is that pci_epc_map_align() may
> >> indicate upon return a mapping size that is smaller (but not 0) than the
> >> requested PCI address region size. For such case, an endpoint function
> >> driver must handle data transfers in fragments.
> >>
> >
> > Is there any incentive in exposing pci_epc_map_align()? I mean, why can't it be
> > hidden inside the new alloc() API itself?
>
> I could drop pci_epc_map_align(), but the idea here was to have an API that is
> not restrictive. E.g., a function driver could allocate memory, keep it and
> repetedly use map_align and map() function to remap it to different PCI
> addresses. With your suggestion, that would not be possible.
>
Is there any requirement currently? If not, let's try to introduce it when the
actual requirement comes.
> >
> > Furthermore, is it possible to avoid the map_align() callback and handle the
> > alignment within the EPC driver?
>
> I am not so sure that this is possible because handling the alignment can
> potentially result in changing the amount of memory to allocate, based on the
> PCI address also. So the allocation API would need to change, a lot.
>
Hmm, looking at patch 11/18, I think it might become complicated.
- Mani
> >> + /*
> >> + * Assume a fixed alignment constraint as specified by the controller
> >> + * features.
> >> + */
> >> + features = pci_epc_get_features(epc, func_no, vfunc_no);
> >> + if (!features || !features->align) {
> >> + map->map_pci_addr = pci_addr;
> >> + map->map_size = size;
> >> + map->map_ofst = 0;
> >
> > These values are overwritten anyway below.
>
> Looks like "return" got dropped. Bug. Will re-add it.
>
>
> --
> Damien Le Moal
> Western Digital Research
>
--
மணிவண்ணன் சதாசிவம்
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org>
To: Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@kernel.org>
Cc: "Lorenzo Pieralisi" <lpieralisi@kernel.org>,
"Kishon Vijay Abraham I" <kishon@kernel.org>,
"Shawn Lin" <shawn.lin@rock-chips.com>,
"Krzysztof Wilczyński" <kw@linux.com>,
"Bjorn Helgaas" <bhelgaas@google.com>,
"Heiko Stuebner" <heiko@sntech.de>,
linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, "Rob Herring" <robh@kernel.org>,
"Krzysztof Kozlowski" <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
"Conor Dooley" <conor+dt@kernel.org>,
devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
"Rick Wertenbroek" <rick.wertenbroek@gmail.com>,
"Wilfred Mallawa" <wilfred.mallawa@wdc.com>,
"Niklas Cassel" <cassel@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/18] PCI: endpoint: Introduce pci_epc_map_align()
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2024 14:51:14 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240403092114.GG25309@thinkpad> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <eb580d64-1110-479a-9a0b-c2f1eacd23e7@kernel.org>
On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 04:54:32PM +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote:
> On 4/3/24 16:45, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 30, 2024 at 01:19:12PM +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote:
> >> Some endpoint controllers have requirements on the alignment of the
> >> controller physical memory address that must be used to map a RC PCI
> >> address region. For instance, the rockchip endpoint controller uses
> >> at most the lower 20 bits of a physical memory address region as the
> >> lower bits of an RC PCI address. For mapping a PCI address region of
> >> size bytes starting from pci_addr, the exact number of address bits
> >> used is the number of address bits changing in the address range
> >> [pci_addr..pci_addr + size - 1].
> >>
> >> For this example, this creates the following constraints:
> >> 1) The offset into the controller physical memory allocated for a
> >> mapping depends on the mapping size *and* the starting PCI address
> >> for the mapping.
> >> 2) A mapping size cannot exceed the controller windows size (1MB) minus
> >> the offset needed into the allocated physical memory, which can end
> >> up being a smaller size than the desired mapping size.
> >>
> >> Handling these constraints independently of the controller being used in
> >> a PCI EP function driver is not possible with the current EPC API as
> >> it only provides the ->align field in struct pci_epc_features.
> >> Furthermore, this alignment is static and does not depend on a mapping
> >> pci address and size.
> >>
> >> Solve this by introducing the function pci_epc_map_align() and the
> >> endpoint controller operation ->map_align to allow endpoint function
> >> drivers to obtain the size and the offset into a controller address
> >> region that must be used to map an RC PCI address region. The size
> >> of the physical address region provided by pci_epc_map_align() can then
> >> be used as the size argument for the function pci_epc_mem_alloc_addr().
> >> The offset into the allocated controller memory can be used to
> >> correctly handle data transfers. Of note is that pci_epc_map_align() may
> >> indicate upon return a mapping size that is smaller (but not 0) than the
> >> requested PCI address region size. For such case, an endpoint function
> >> driver must handle data transfers in fragments.
> >>
> >
> > Is there any incentive in exposing pci_epc_map_align()? I mean, why can't it be
> > hidden inside the new alloc() API itself?
>
> I could drop pci_epc_map_align(), but the idea here was to have an API that is
> not restrictive. E.g., a function driver could allocate memory, keep it and
> repetedly use map_align and map() function to remap it to different PCI
> addresses. With your suggestion, that would not be possible.
>
Is there any requirement currently? If not, let's try to introduce it when the
actual requirement comes.
> >
> > Furthermore, is it possible to avoid the map_align() callback and handle the
> > alignment within the EPC driver?
>
> I am not so sure that this is possible because handling the alignment can
> potentially result in changing the amount of memory to allocate, based on the
> PCI address also. So the allocation API would need to change, a lot.
>
Hmm, looking at patch 11/18, I think it might become complicated.
- Mani
> >> + /*
> >> + * Assume a fixed alignment constraint as specified by the controller
> >> + * features.
> >> + */
> >> + features = pci_epc_get_features(epc, func_no, vfunc_no);
> >> + if (!features || !features->align) {
> >> + map->map_pci_addr = pci_addr;
> >> + map->map_size = size;
> >> + map->map_ofst = 0;
> >
> > These values are overwritten anyway below.
>
> Looks like "return" got dropped. Bug. Will re-add it.
>
>
> --
> Damien Le Moal
> Western Digital Research
>
--
மணிவண்ணன் சதாசிவம்
_______________________________________________
Linux-rockchip mailing list
Linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-rockchip
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org>
To: Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@kernel.org>
Cc: "Lorenzo Pieralisi" <lpieralisi@kernel.org>,
"Kishon Vijay Abraham I" <kishon@kernel.org>,
"Shawn Lin" <shawn.lin@rock-chips.com>,
"Krzysztof Wilczyński" <kw@linux.com>,
"Bjorn Helgaas" <bhelgaas@google.com>,
"Heiko Stuebner" <heiko@sntech.de>,
linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, "Rob Herring" <robh@kernel.org>,
"Krzysztof Kozlowski" <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
"Conor Dooley" <conor+dt@kernel.org>,
devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
"Rick Wertenbroek" <rick.wertenbroek@gmail.com>,
"Wilfred Mallawa" <wilfred.mallawa@wdc.com>,
"Niklas Cassel" <cassel@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/18] PCI: endpoint: Introduce pci_epc_map_align()
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2024 14:51:14 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240403092114.GG25309@thinkpad> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <eb580d64-1110-479a-9a0b-c2f1eacd23e7@kernel.org>
On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 04:54:32PM +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote:
> On 4/3/24 16:45, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 30, 2024 at 01:19:12PM +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote:
> >> Some endpoint controllers have requirements on the alignment of the
> >> controller physical memory address that must be used to map a RC PCI
> >> address region. For instance, the rockchip endpoint controller uses
> >> at most the lower 20 bits of a physical memory address region as the
> >> lower bits of an RC PCI address. For mapping a PCI address region of
> >> size bytes starting from pci_addr, the exact number of address bits
> >> used is the number of address bits changing in the address range
> >> [pci_addr..pci_addr + size - 1].
> >>
> >> For this example, this creates the following constraints:
> >> 1) The offset into the controller physical memory allocated for a
> >> mapping depends on the mapping size *and* the starting PCI address
> >> for the mapping.
> >> 2) A mapping size cannot exceed the controller windows size (1MB) minus
> >> the offset needed into the allocated physical memory, which can end
> >> up being a smaller size than the desired mapping size.
> >>
> >> Handling these constraints independently of the controller being used in
> >> a PCI EP function driver is not possible with the current EPC API as
> >> it only provides the ->align field in struct pci_epc_features.
> >> Furthermore, this alignment is static and does not depend on a mapping
> >> pci address and size.
> >>
> >> Solve this by introducing the function pci_epc_map_align() and the
> >> endpoint controller operation ->map_align to allow endpoint function
> >> drivers to obtain the size and the offset into a controller address
> >> region that must be used to map an RC PCI address region. The size
> >> of the physical address region provided by pci_epc_map_align() can then
> >> be used as the size argument for the function pci_epc_mem_alloc_addr().
> >> The offset into the allocated controller memory can be used to
> >> correctly handle data transfers. Of note is that pci_epc_map_align() may
> >> indicate upon return a mapping size that is smaller (but not 0) than the
> >> requested PCI address region size. For such case, an endpoint function
> >> driver must handle data transfers in fragments.
> >>
> >
> > Is there any incentive in exposing pci_epc_map_align()? I mean, why can't it be
> > hidden inside the new alloc() API itself?
>
> I could drop pci_epc_map_align(), but the idea here was to have an API that is
> not restrictive. E.g., a function driver could allocate memory, keep it and
> repetedly use map_align and map() function to remap it to different PCI
> addresses. With your suggestion, that would not be possible.
>
Is there any requirement currently? If not, let's try to introduce it when the
actual requirement comes.
> >
> > Furthermore, is it possible to avoid the map_align() callback and handle the
> > alignment within the EPC driver?
>
> I am not so sure that this is possible because handling the alignment can
> potentially result in changing the amount of memory to allocate, based on the
> PCI address also. So the allocation API would need to change, a lot.
>
Hmm, looking at patch 11/18, I think it might become complicated.
- Mani
> >> + /*
> >> + * Assume a fixed alignment constraint as specified by the controller
> >> + * features.
> >> + */
> >> + features = pci_epc_get_features(epc, func_no, vfunc_no);
> >> + if (!features || !features->align) {
> >> + map->map_pci_addr = pci_addr;
> >> + map->map_size = size;
> >> + map->map_ofst = 0;
> >
> > These values are overwritten anyway below.
>
> Looks like "return" got dropped. Bug. Will re-add it.
>
>
> --
> Damien Le Moal
> Western Digital Research
>
--
மணிவண்ணன் சதாசிவம்
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-04-03 9:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 163+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-03-30 4:19 [PATCH v2 00/18] Improve PCI memory mapping API Damien Le Moal
2024-03-30 4:19 ` Damien Le Moal
2024-03-30 4:19 ` Damien Le Moal
2024-03-30 4:19 ` [PATCH v2 01/18] PCI: endpoint: Introduce pci_epc_function_is_valid() Damien Le Moal
2024-03-30 4:19 ` Damien Le Moal
2024-03-30 4:19 ` Damien Le Moal
2024-04-03 6:46 ` Manivannan Sadhasivam
2024-04-03 6:46 ` Manivannan Sadhasivam
2024-04-03 6:46 ` Manivannan Sadhasivam
2024-04-05 13:33 ` Niklas Cassel
2024-04-05 13:33 ` Niklas Cassel
2024-04-05 13:33 ` Niklas Cassel
2024-03-30 4:19 ` [PATCH v2 02/18] PCI: endpoint: Introduce pci_epc_map_align() Damien Le Moal
2024-03-30 4:19 ` Damien Le Moal
2024-03-30 4:19 ` Damien Le Moal
2024-04-03 7:45 ` Manivannan Sadhasivam
2024-04-03 7:45 ` Manivannan Sadhasivam
2024-04-03 7:45 ` Manivannan Sadhasivam
2024-04-03 7:54 ` Damien Le Moal
2024-04-03 7:54 ` Damien Le Moal
2024-04-03 7:54 ` Damien Le Moal
2024-04-03 9:21 ` Manivannan Sadhasivam [this message]
2024-04-03 9:21 ` Manivannan Sadhasivam
2024-04-03 9:21 ` Manivannan Sadhasivam
2024-04-03 12:33 ` Kishon Vijay Abraham I
2024-04-03 12:33 ` Kishon Vijay Abraham I
2024-04-03 12:33 ` Kishon Vijay Abraham I
2024-04-04 2:43 ` Damien Le Moal
2024-04-04 2:43 ` Damien Le Moal
2024-04-04 2:43 ` Damien Le Moal
2024-04-05 12:20 ` Niklas Cassel
2024-04-05 12:20 ` Niklas Cassel
2024-04-05 12:20 ` Niklas Cassel
2024-04-05 12:43 ` Damien Le Moal
2024-04-05 12:43 ` Damien Le Moal
2024-04-05 12:43 ` Damien Le Moal
2024-04-05 15:18 ` Niklas Cassel
2024-04-05 15:18 ` Niklas Cassel
2024-04-05 15:18 ` Niklas Cassel
2024-04-10 11:57 ` Kishon Vijay Abraham I
2024-04-10 11:57 ` Kishon Vijay Abraham I
2024-04-10 11:57 ` Kishon Vijay Abraham I
2024-04-05 8:38 ` Dan Carpenter
2024-04-05 8:38 ` Dan Carpenter
2024-04-05 8:38 ` Dan Carpenter
2024-03-30 4:19 ` [PATCH v2 03/18] PCI: endpoint: Introduce pci_epc_mem_map()/unmap() Damien Le Moal
2024-03-30 4:19 ` Damien Le Moal
2024-03-30 4:19 ` Damien Le Moal
2024-04-03 9:48 ` Manivannan Sadhasivam
2024-04-03 9:48 ` Manivannan Sadhasivam
2024-04-03 9:48 ` Manivannan Sadhasivam
2024-04-05 14:10 ` Niklas Cassel
2024-04-05 14:10 ` Niklas Cassel
2024-04-05 14:10 ` Niklas Cassel
2024-03-30 4:19 ` [PATCH v2 04/18] PCI: endpoint: test: Use pci_epc_mem_map/unmap() Damien Le Moal
2024-03-30 4:19 ` Damien Le Moal
2024-03-30 4:19 ` Damien Le Moal
2024-04-05 13:37 ` Niklas Cassel
2024-04-05 13:37 ` Niklas Cassel
2024-04-05 13:37 ` Niklas Cassel
2024-03-30 4:19 ` [PATCH v2 05/18] PCI: endpoint: test: Synchronously cancel command handler work Damien Le Moal
2024-03-30 4:19 ` Damien Le Moal
2024-03-30 4:19 ` Damien Le Moal
2024-04-03 7:47 ` Manivannan Sadhasivam
2024-04-03 7:47 ` Manivannan Sadhasivam
2024-04-03 7:47 ` Manivannan Sadhasivam
2024-04-05 13:41 ` Niklas Cassel
2024-04-05 13:41 ` Niklas Cassel
2024-04-05 13:41 ` Niklas Cassel
2024-03-30 4:19 ` [PATCH v2 06/18] PCI: endpoint: test: Implement link_down event operation Damien Le Moal
2024-03-30 4:19 ` Damien Le Moal
2024-03-30 4:19 ` Damien Le Moal
2024-04-03 7:48 ` Manivannan Sadhasivam
2024-04-03 7:48 ` Manivannan Sadhasivam
2024-04-03 7:48 ` Manivannan Sadhasivam
2024-04-05 13:39 ` Niklas Cassel
2024-04-05 13:39 ` Niklas Cassel
2024-04-05 13:39 ` Niklas Cassel
2024-04-06 2:24 ` Manivannan Sadhasivam
2024-04-06 2:24 ` Manivannan Sadhasivam
2024-04-06 2:24 ` Manivannan Sadhasivam
2024-03-30 4:19 ` [PATCH v2 07/18] PCI: rockchip-ep: Fix address translation unit programming Damien Le Moal
2024-03-30 4:19 ` Damien Le Moal
2024-03-30 4:19 ` Damien Le Moal
2024-03-30 4:19 ` [PATCH v2 08/18] PCI: rockchip-ep: Use a macro to define EP controller .align feature Damien Le Moal
2024-03-30 4:19 ` Damien Le Moal
2024-03-30 4:19 ` Damien Le Moal
2024-03-30 4:19 ` [PATCH v2 09/18] PCI: rockchip-ep: Improve rockchip_pcie_ep_unmap_addr() Damien Le Moal
2024-03-30 4:19 ` Damien Le Moal
2024-03-30 4:19 ` Damien Le Moal
2024-03-30 4:19 ` [PATCH v2 10/18] PCI: rockchip-ep: Improve rockchip_pcie_ep_map_addr() Damien Le Moal
2024-03-30 4:19 ` Damien Le Moal
2024-03-30 4:19 ` Damien Le Moal
2024-03-30 4:19 ` [PATCH v2 11/18] PCI: rockchip-ep: Implement the map_align endpoint controller operation Damien Le Moal
2024-03-30 4:19 ` Damien Le Moal
2024-03-30 4:19 ` Damien Le Moal
2024-03-30 4:19 ` [PATCH v2 12/18] PCI: rockchip-ep: Refactor rockchip_pcie_ep_probe() memory allocations Damien Le Moal
2024-03-30 4:19 ` Damien Le Moal
2024-03-30 4:19 ` Damien Le Moal
2024-03-30 4:19 ` [PATCH v2 13/18] PCI: rockchip-ep: Refactor rockchip_pcie_ep_probe() MSI-X hiding Damien Le Moal
2024-03-30 4:19 ` Damien Le Moal
2024-03-30 4:19 ` Damien Le Moal
2024-03-30 4:19 ` [PATCH v2 14/18] PCI: rockchip-ep: Refactor endpoint link training enable Damien Le Moal
2024-03-30 4:19 ` Damien Le Moal
2024-03-30 4:19 ` Damien Le Moal
2024-03-30 4:19 ` [PATCH v2 15/18] PCI: rockship-ep: Introduce rockchip_pcie_ep_stop() Damien Le Moal
2024-03-30 4:19 ` Damien Le Moal
2024-03-30 4:19 ` Damien Le Moal
2024-03-30 4:19 ` [PATCH v2 16/18] PCI: rockchip-ep: Improve link training Damien Le Moal
2024-03-30 4:19 ` Damien Le Moal
2024-03-30 4:19 ` Damien Le Moal
2024-04-03 11:54 ` Rick Wertenbroek
2024-04-03 11:54 ` Rick Wertenbroek
2024-04-03 11:54 ` Rick Wertenbroek
2024-03-30 4:19 ` [PATCH v2 17/18] dt-bindings: pci: rockchip,rk3399-pcie-ep: Add ep-gpios property Damien Le Moal
2024-03-30 4:19 ` Damien Le Moal
2024-03-30 4:19 ` Damien Le Moal
2024-03-30 9:16 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2024-03-30 9:16 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2024-03-30 9:16 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2024-03-31 23:06 ` Damien Le Moal
2024-03-31 23:06 ` Damien Le Moal
2024-03-31 23:06 ` Damien Le Moal
2024-04-01 9:57 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2024-04-01 9:57 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2024-04-01 9:57 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2024-04-01 23:36 ` Damien Le Moal
2024-04-01 23:36 ` Damien Le Moal
2024-04-01 23:36 ` Damien Le Moal
2024-04-02 7:33 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2024-04-02 7:33 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2024-04-02 7:33 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2024-04-02 7:38 ` Damien Le Moal
2024-04-02 7:38 ` Damien Le Moal
2024-04-02 7:38 ` Damien Le Moal
2024-04-02 7:55 ` Damien Le Moal
2024-04-02 7:55 ` Damien Le Moal
2024-04-02 7:55 ` Damien Le Moal
2024-04-02 18:10 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2024-04-02 18:10 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2024-04-02 18:10 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2024-04-02 23:23 ` Damien Le Moal
2024-04-02 23:23 ` Damien Le Moal
2024-04-02 23:23 ` Damien Le Moal
2024-04-02 7:38 ` Damien Le Moal
2024-04-02 7:38 ` Damien Le Moal
2024-04-02 7:38 ` Damien Le Moal
2024-03-30 4:19 ` [PATCH v2 18/18] PCI: rockchip-ep: Handle PERST# signal in endpoint mode Damien Le Moal
2024-03-30 4:19 ` Damien Le Moal
2024-03-30 4:19 ` Damien Le Moal
2024-04-02 12:36 ` [PATCH v2 00/18] Improve PCI memory mapping API Rick Wertenbroek
2024-04-02 12:36 ` Rick Wertenbroek
2024-04-02 12:36 ` Rick Wertenbroek
2024-04-03 7:50 ` Manivannan Sadhasivam
2024-04-03 7:50 ` Manivannan Sadhasivam
2024-04-03 7:50 ` Manivannan Sadhasivam
2024-04-03 7:58 ` Damien Le Moal
2024-04-03 7:58 ` Damien Le Moal
2024-04-03 7:58 ` Damien Le Moal
2024-04-03 9:25 ` Manivannan Sadhasivam
2024-04-03 9:25 ` Manivannan Sadhasivam
2024-04-03 9:25 ` Manivannan Sadhasivam
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2024-04-05 7:23 [PATCH v2 02/18] PCI: endpoint: Introduce pci_epc_map_align() kernel test robot
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=20240403092114.GG25309@thinkpad \
--to=manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=cassel@kernel.org \
--cc=conor+dt@kernel.org \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=dlemoal@kernel.org \
--cc=heiko@sntech.de \
--cc=kishon@kernel.org \
--cc=krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org \
--cc=kw@linux.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=lpieralisi@kernel.org \
--cc=rick.wertenbroek@gmail.com \
--cc=robh@kernel.org \
--cc=shawn.lin@rock-chips.com \
--cc=wilfred.mallawa@wdc.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.