From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann)
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2015 23:56:37 +0200
Subject: [PATCH v7 5/6] Documentation: dt-bindings: pci: altera pcie
 device tree binding
In-Reply-To: <CAFiDJ5_MYC=V_L1LyRNq00z=DerzKAF=RF5av9vHnUPP+9a1nw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1442801587-3812-1-git-send-email-lftan@altera.com>
 <CAL_JsqL9eoTRa2-eeNJgVoO=0LyuaaJ87E4_BS0KocRKBXGdGA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFiDJ5_MYC=V_L1LyRNq00z=DerzKAF=RF5av9vHnUPP+9a1nw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6497772.rqSurELzER@wuerfel>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Friday 02 October 2015 15:53:44 Ley Foon Tan wrote:
> > Strictly speaking, if you have undocumented bindings downstream that
> > is your problem and we don't have to accept them as-is upstream. I'm
> > not going to worry about that here.
> >
> >>> txs contains the config space?
> >> It is not the config space, but a memory slave port.
> >
> > Then where is the config space? It should not be part of "ranges" is
> > all I care about.
> The config space is not part of "ranges". Our IP uses TLP packet to
> access config space.
> 

It took me a bit to figure out what you mean here. To save others
from reading the source, here is what I found:

* The config space is accessed indirectly through registers from the
  "cra" register range, which is the right approach according to the
  point that Rob made.
* hardware-wise this basically looks like bit-banged PCIe, which is
  both awesome and scary ;-)

	Arnd