From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: robherring2@gmail.com (Rob Herring)
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 08:47:04 -0500
Subject: [PATCH] ARM: fix __io macro for PCMCIA
In-Reply-To: <20120404130401.GU24211@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
References: <1333509112-1555-1-git-send-email-robherring2@gmail.com>
 <20120404090335.GQ24211@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
 <201204041027.30353.arnd@arndb.de>
 <20120404125624.GT24211@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
 <20120404130401.GU24211@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Message-ID: <4F7C50D8.6060102@gmail.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On 04/04/2012 08:04 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 04, 2012 at 01:56:24PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 04, 2012 at 10:27:30AM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>> On Wednesday 04 April 2012, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Apr 03, 2012 at 10:11:52PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
>>>>> With commit c334bc1 (ARM: make mach/io.h include optional), PCMCIA was
>>>>> broken as PCMCIA depends on __io() being just a cast. This needs a better
>>>>> fix with a fixed i/o address mapping, but for now we just restore things
>>>>> to the previous behavior.
>>>>
>>>> And what about systems with PCI IO at non-zero offsets with cardbus/pcmcia?
>>>> This is broken and your assumption above is wrong.
>>>
>>> I would think they all still use their own mach/io.h. Which ones are you
>>> thinking of?
>>
>> But they don't need the IO_SPACE_LIMIT messed around with - it should
>> remain at 64K not 4GB.
> 
> Actually, we've done the whole io.h removal in totally the wrong bloody
> order - because in removing all these so-called unnecessary io.h headers,
> we've removed all those IO_SPACE_LIMIT definitions which overrode the
> generic ones.
> 
> What we should have done is sorted out the PCMCIA/PCI/ISA IO space _first_
> before removing any mach/io.h headers.
> 
> The fix for this is to restore those io.h headers which defined
> IO_SPACE_LIMIT to something else other than the asm/io.h default until
> the proper process in the above paragraph has been followed, and not
> to work around it by buggering with the generic - and correct -
> definition.
> 

If you look at who defined IO_SPACE_LIMIT, you'll see most were just
wrong (i.e. 0xffffffff and no PCMCIA/ISA/PCI). Is there any PCMCIA
enabled ARM platform that doesn't require IO_SPACE_LIMIT to be 0xffffffff?

CONFIG_PCMCIA_SOC_COMMON is pretty much specific to PXA and SA11xx and
we already have a special case for it in asm/io.h. I'm simply extending
that to the few other platforms using PCMCIA. So it's not really any
more buggered than it already was.

Also, with this patch, building a PCMCIA enabled platform and non-PCMCIA
platform together are compatible. Adding io.h will mean any PCMCIA
platform could not be part of a single kernel build (other issues aside).

Rob