From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann)
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 17:26:39 +0200
Subject: [PATCH 0/3] ARM: PCI: implement virtual PCI host controller
In-Reply-To: <20140415144735.GM17408@arm.com>
References: <1391532784-1953-1-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.com>
 <21141977.8ucQJzlJts@wuerfel> <20140415144735.GM17408@arm.com>
Message-ID: <10739949.AxKDLcKlhj@wuerfel>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Tuesday 15 April 2014 15:47:35 Will Deacon wrote:
> > We also have discussed some ideas about how to restructure the PCI
> > code layer to make it easier to share host drivers across architectures
> > and clean up the interfaces in the process.
> 
> Ok. Whilst this all sounds good from an arm64 perspective (with Liviu
> currently doing the work), it's not clear to me where that leaves my 32-bit
> ARM kvmtool code. That was the main reason for me writing this driver, and it
> seems a shame to have to wait for all the generic code to be sorted out
> before it can be used on AArch32, where there is already a functional
> pcibios implementation. The discussions mention things like generic
> pci_host_bridge_ops, but having that for arch/arm/ doesn't sound like
> something that is imminent.
> 
> Of course, I plan to port my driver to the new infrastructure when it lands
> (since I want to support arm64), but it would be good to have something for
> AArch32 in the meantime.

Agreed. You'll probably have to add a few #ifdef until we have the
infrastructure in place. However, I'd prefer not having to do that for
a lot of other drivers. It's only a matter of time until someone wants
one of the existing arm32 drivers to work on arm64, and we really
shouldn't have to duplicate a lot of #ifdef logic across them, just
to deal with the architectures being different.

	Arnd