From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2021 10:15:16 +0100 Subject: [Intel-wired-lan] [RFC 01/32] Kconfig: introduce and depend on LEGACY_PCI In-Reply-To: References: <20211227164317.4146918-1-schnelle@linux.ibm.com> <20211227164317.4146918-2-schnelle@linux.ibm.com> Message-ID: <20211228101435.3a55b983@coco.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: intel-wired-lan@osuosl.org List-ID: Em Tue, 28 Dec 2021 09:21:23 +0100 Greg Kroah-Hartman escreveu: > On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 05:42:46PM +0100, Niklas Schnelle wrote: > > --- a/drivers/pci/Kconfig > > +++ b/drivers/pci/Kconfig > > @@ -23,6 +23,17 @@ menuconfig PCI > > > > if PCI > > > > +config LEGACY_PCI > > + bool "Enable support for legacy PCI devices" > > + depends on HAVE_PCI > > + help > > + This option enables support for legacy PCI devices. This includes > > + PCI devices attached directly or via a bridge on a PCI Express bus. > > + It also includes compatibility features on PCI Express devices which > > + make use of legacy I/O spaces. This Kconfig doesn't seem what it is needed there, as this should be an arch-dependent feature, and not something that the poor user should be aware if a given architecture supports it or not. Also, the above will keep causing warnings or errors with randconfigs. Also, the "depends on HAVE_CPI" is bogus, as PCI already depends on HAVE_PCI: menuconfig PCI bool "PCI support" depends on HAVE_PCI help This option enables support for the PCI local bus, including support for PCI-X and the foundations for PCI Express support. Say 'Y' here unless you know what you are doing. So, instead, I would expect that a new HAVE_xxx option would be added at arch/*/Kconfig, like: config X86 ... select HAVE_PCI_DIRECT_IO It would also make sense to document it at Documentation/features/. > > All you really care about is the "legacy" I/O spaces here, this isn't > tied to PCI specifically at all, right? > > So why not just have a OLD_STYLE_IO config option or something like > that, to show that it's the i/o functions we care about here, not PCI at > all? > > And maybe not call it "old" or "legacy" as time constantly goes forward, > just describe it as it is, "DIRECT_IO"? Agreed. HAVE_PCI_DIRECT_IO (or something similar) seems a more appropriate name for it. Thanks, Mauro