From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: galak@codeaurora.org (Kumar Gala) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2014 10:40:30 -0500 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] pci: Add IORESOURCE_BIT entry for PCIe ECAM resources. In-Reply-To: <20140602150945.964D4C40381@trevor.secretlab.ca> References: <20140530233034.GH1677@bart.dudau.co.uk> <1401496601-31983-1-git-send-email-Liviu.Dudau@arm.com> <1401496601-31983-2-git-send-email-Liviu.Dudau@arm.com> <4756033.LkcFQN0chs@wuerfel> <20140602150945.964D4C40381@trevor.secretlab.ca> Message-ID: <390B3F94-C058-47D6-82CE-0393E60014FF@codeaurora.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Jun 2, 2014, at 10:09 AM, Grant Likely wrote: > On Sat, 31 May 2014 20:41:04 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> On Saturday 31 May 2014 01:36:40 Liviu Dudau wrote: >>> We would like to be able to describe PCIe ECAM resources as >>> IORESOURCE_MEM blocks while distinguish them from standard >>> memory resources. Add an IORESOURCE_BIT entry for this case. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Liviu Dudau >> >> I still don't see any value in this at all. What is the advantage >> of doing this opposed to just having a standardized 'reg' property >> for a particular compatible string? > > I'm inclined to agree. It doesn't seem appropriate to put config space > in ranges, and the host controller binding is responsible for > identifying how config space is memory mapped. > > g. I don?t agree when it comes to ECAM, but we can drop this for now until someone really does that. However, what do we do with the 2 cases that exist in upstream that are using ranges for cfg space? - k -- Employee of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation