From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: hanjun.guo@linaro.org (Hanjun Guo) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 17:34:59 +0800 Subject: [PATCH v9 08/21] ARM64 / ACPI: Introduce PCI stub functions for ACPI In-Reply-To: <20150309150119.GG16268@e106497-lin.cambridge.arm.com> References: <1424853601-6675-1-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org> <1424853601-6675-9-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org> <20150309150119.GG16268@e106497-lin.cambridge.arm.com> Message-ID: <54FEBAC3.9050804@linaro.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 2015?03?09? 23:01, Liviu Dudau wrote: > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 08:39:48AM +0000, Hanjun Guo wrote: >> CONFIG_ACPI depends CONFIG_PCI on x86 and ia64, in ARM64 server >> world we will have PCIe in most cases, but some of them may not, >> make CONFIG_ACPI depend CONFIG_PCI on ARM64 will satisfy both. >> >> With that case, we need some arch dependent PCI functions to >> access the config space before the PCI root bridge is created, and >> pci_acpi_scan_root() to create the PCI root bus. So introduce >> some stub function here to make ACPI core compile and revisit >> them later when implemented on ARM64. >> >> CC: Liviu Dudau >> CC: Catalin Marinas >> CC: Will Deacon >> Tested-by: Suravee Suthikulpanit >> Tested-by: Yijing Wang >> Tested-by: Mark Langsdorf >> Tested-by: Jon Masters >> Tested-by: Timur Tabi >> Tested-by: Robert Richter >> Acked-by: Robert Richter >> Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo >> --- >> arch/arm64/include/asm/pci.h | 6 ++++++ >> arch/arm64/kernel/pci.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> 2 files changed, 31 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pci.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pci.h >> index 872ba93..fded096 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pci.h >> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pci.h >> @@ -24,6 +24,12 @@ >> */ >> #define PCI_DMA_BUS_IS_PHYS (0) > > Hanjun, Hi Liviu, > >> >> +static inline int pci_get_legacy_ide_irq(struct pci_dev *dev, int channel) >> +{ >> + /* no legacy IRQ on arm64 */ >> + return -ENODEV; >> +} >> + > > Could you explain to me what situation you encountered where you needed > to define this? I'm trying to figure out when this would be needed and the > only thing I can come up with would be for drivers/pnp/resource.c, but that > is guarded by #ifdef CONFIG_PCI, which would mean that you should move this > a bit further down in the file, Agreed, will move it to #ifdef CONFIG_PCI .. #endif. > but also contradicts the last comment on > this patch (i.e. PCI on ACPI is not really implemented, so presumably > CONFIG_PCI is not enabled?) CONFIG_ACPI depends on CONFIG_PCI in the Kconfig, so CONFIG_PCI will be enabled even PCI on ACPI is not really implemented now, did I understand your question correctly? Thanks Hanjun