From: linux@arm.linux.org.uk (Russell King - ARM Linux)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: RFC: setting up a pci-to-amba bridge device
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2012 10:46:23 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120405094623.GF24211@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120405093152.GA24229@mail.gnudd.com>
On Thu, Apr 05, 2012 at 11:31:52AM +0200, Alessandro Rubini wrote:
> * CONFIG_ARM_AMBA: Russell, you suggested to rename to
> CONFIG_ARM_PRIMECELL, for a good reason. Shall I take over this
> and submit patches or is just a theoretical idea?
Yes please.
> * <asm/sizes.h> I submitted patches to move to <linux/sizes.h> as you
> suggested but got no feedback. This was on March 1st, in a patch set
> with other stuff that was not good. Should I re-run the procedure,
> with a sizes.h-only patch set? If so, who is responsible to merge
> this change which is somewhat multi-arch? If I do it, I'd leave the
> asm/ headers in place to not disturb current users, coming back to
> this after a few months to add a #warning so users can fix themselves,
> to then remove the asm/ headers after other few months. Ok?
It's been moved to asm-generic.h, and we now use:
generic-y += sizes.h
in our arch/arm/include/asm/Kbuild. Even so, I think if everyone starts
to use it, it should be in include/linux.
> * clk API: you suggested to wait for the unified implementation
> to be merged and that's fine (I haven't checked recently the status,
> but I'm going to do my homework here).
This is now in mainline.
> * memory areas (this is a new point, not present in my older message).
> When amba/bus.c requests the device resources, it fails because of
> the hosting PCI bus:
>
> [ 6.866591] request [mem 0xcec00000-0xcec00fff]
> [ 6.871110] conflict [mem 0xc7f00000-0xdfffffff]
>
> This is the current /proc/iomem, after ignoring the error:
>
> c7f00000-dfffffff : PCI Bus 0000:00
> ce000000-dfffffff : PCI Bus 0000:01
> ce000000-dfffffff : PCI Bus 0000:02
> ce000000-d1ffffff : PCI Bus 0000:03
> cec00000-cec00fff : uart-pl011
>
> Any suggestion about a good solution to this "ownership" problem of memory
> areas?
That's because we're wanting the parent resource, not &iomem_resource
to be passed. If you do that it should work fine. I'm no fan of
insert_resource() - I've seen it screw up the resource tree by
misplacing or swapping the order of device resources when they should've
actually failed.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-04-05 9:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-04-05 9:31 RFC: setting up a pci-to-amba bridge device Alessandro Rubini
2012-04-05 9:46 ` Russell King - ARM Linux [this message]
2012-04-05 11:53 ` Alessandro Rubini
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=20120405094623.GF24211@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk \
--to=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).