From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: catalin.marinas@arm.com (Catalin Marinas) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 11:53:58 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v9 12/12] PCI: Introduce pci_remap_iospace() for remapping PCI I/O bus resources into CPU space In-Reply-To: <20140813103311.GQ25761@e106497-lin.cambridge.arm.com> References: <1407860725-25202-1-git-send-email-Liviu.Dudau@arm.com> <1407860725-25202-13-git-send-email-Liviu.Dudau@arm.com> <20140813100118.GC18495@arm.com> <20140813103311.GQ25761@e106497-lin.cambridge.arm.com> Message-ID: <20140813105358.GD18495@arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:33:11AM +0100, Liviu Dudau wrote: > On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:01:18AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 05:25:25PM +0100, Liviu Dudau wrote: > > > Introduce a default implementation for remapping PCI bus I/O resources > > > onto the CPU address space. Architectures with special needs may > > > provide their own version, but most should be able to use this one. > > > > > > Cc: Bjorn Helgaas > > > Cc: Arnd Bergmann > > > Cc: Rob Herring > > > Signed-off-by: Liviu Dudau > > > > I guess you could have added the generic pgprot_device definition to > > this patch and the arm64 specific one in the separate arm64 PCIe support > > (and one less patch in total). But not a big issue either way. > > I went by the established history on that file, where a new interface gets > introduced together with its use. I guess it makes backing out the change > much easier? The point is that the only user of pgprot_device is pci_remap_iospace() currently, so it makes sense to introduce the generic definition together with this patch. -- Catalin