From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: robherring2@gmail.com (Rob Herring)
Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 09:53:55 -0500
Subject: [PATCH 6/8] arm: mach-armada: add support for Armada XP board
 with device tree
In-Reply-To: <201205151425.30706.arnd@arndb.de>
References: <1337072084-21967-1-git-send-email-thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
 <4FB25FE9.3060209@codethink.co.uk> <20120515161655.504f1403@skate>
 <201205151425.30706.arnd@arndb.de>
Message-ID: <4FB26E03.2030401@gmail.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On 05/15/2012 09:25 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 15 May 2012, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
>> Le Tue, 15 May 2012 14:53:45 +0100,
>> Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@codethink.co.uk> a ?crit :
>>
>>> Since the two board support files are identical, except for the names
>>> they print, I'd say this is the job of one file. It can always be
>>> split later.
>>
>> The initial motivation for keeping two files here is that the two SoC
>> have a different number of PCIe memory areas, and those areas are
>> typically mapped in ->map_io(). However:
>>
>>  * Maybe those mappings can be done using a normal ioremap() rather
>>    than in ->map_io(), according to DT informations (but most other ARM
>>    SoC support at the moment seem to do PCI mappings using static
>>    mappings in ->map_io)
> 
> I'm pretty sure we can use ioremap for new PCI implementations now.
> Also, you can scan the device tree in map_io() if necesary, to see which
> PCIe ports are enabled.

For the i/o windows, they should be static because we want a fixed
virtual address across platforms. 0xfef00000 is the planned address.
Memory windows should be ioremap.

Rob