[PATCH v7 1/6] pci: Introduce pci_register_io_range() helper function.

Liviu Dudau
2014-04-07T13:42:50Z

On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 12:36:15PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Monday 07 April 2014 09:31:20 Liviu Dudau wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 05, 2014 at 01:19:53AM +0100, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> >
> > > Host bridges on x86 could have MMIO apertures that turn CPU memory accesses
> > > into PCI port accesses. We could implement any number of I/O port spaces
> > > this way, by making the kernel inb()/outb()/etc. interfaces smart enough to
> > > use the memory-mapped space instead of (or in addition to) the
> > > INB/OUTB/etc. instructions.
>
> PowerPC actually has this already, as CONFIG_PPC_INDIRECT_PIO meaning that
> access to PIO registers is bus specific, and there is also CONFIG_PPC_INDIRECT_MMIO
> for the case where MMIO access is not native.
>
> > Right, sorry for my ignorance then: how does *currently* the device driver do
> > the I/O transfer transparent of the implementation mechanism? Or they have
> > intimate knowledge of wether the device is behind a host bridge and can do MMIO
> > or is on an ISA or CF bus and then it needs INB/OUTB ? And if we make inb/outb
> > smarter, does that mean that we need to change the drivers?
>
> The idea of that would be to not change drivers.
>
> My preference here would be to only have a generic function for those
> architectures that have the simple MMIO access all the time.
>
> > > ia64 does this (see arch/ia64/include/asm/io.h for a little description)
> > > and I think maybe one or two other arches have something similar.
> > >
> > > > Introduce a pci_register_io_range() helper function that can be used
> > > > by the architecture code to keep track of the I/O ranges described by the
> > > > PCI bindings. If the PCI_IOBASE macro is not defined that signals
> > > > lack of support for PCI and we return an error.
> > >
> > > I don't quite see how you intend to use this, because this series doesn't
> > > include any non-stub implementation of pci_register_io_range().
> > >
> > > Is this anything like the ia64 strategy I mentioned above? If so, it would
> > > be really nice to unify some of this stuff.
> >
> > After discussions with Arnd and Catalin I know have a new series that moves
> > some of the code from arm64 series into this one. I am putting it through
> > testing right know as I am going to have to depend on another series that
> > makes PCI_IOBASE defined only for architectures that do MMIO in order to
> > choose the correct default implementation for these functions. My hope is
> > that I will be able to send the series this week.
>
> I think migrating other architectures to use the same code should be
> a separate effort from adding a generic implementation that can be
> used by arm64. It's probably a good idea to have patches to convert
> arm32 and/or microblaze.

Agree. My updated series only moves the arm64 code into framework to make the
arm64 part a noop.

Liviu

>
> Arnd
>
>

--
====================
| I would like to |
| fix the world, |
| but they're not |
| giving me the |
\ source code! /
---------------
?\_(?)_/?