From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 3/3] arm64: Add architecture support for PCI Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 17:22:26 +1100 Message-ID: <1394950946.15098.111.camel@pasglop> References: <1394811258-1500-1-git-send-email-Liviu.Dudau@arm.com> <201403141838.08900.arnd@arndb.de> <20140314180527.GZ6457@e106497-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <201403142010.39886.arnd@arndb.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <201403142010.39886.arnd@arndb.de> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , linaro-kernel , Catalin Marinas , Liviu Dudau , LKML , Will Deacon , Grant Likely , Tanmay Inamdar , linux-pci , Bjorn Helgaas , LAKML List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2014-03-14 at 20:10 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > As for the other two functions, I've no special attachment to where they are present > > and I'm happy to move them into drivers/pci on the condition that the patchset doesn't > > double in size. The reason why I'm weary of touching other architectures in a significant > > way is the current lack of engineering bandwidth and way of testing all the architectures. > > My low friction approach has been to introduce them in arm64 and then slowly move them > > into core (and yes, I know about good intentions and the road to hell.) > > I think everyone working on PCI is fed up with having arch-specific implementations > of all these, and Bjorn has been very supportive of generic infrastructure in the > past. Even just adding a generic infrastructure in a common place that is used > only by one architecture in my mind would be a significant improvement. I agree, it's a reasonable approach and microblaze which is simple and just "copied" powerpc originally would be a good one to move over as well. powerpc itself has many historical quirks and while I'm interested in a common implementation, it will take me a bit of spare time to get through things and figure out what can be done there and what "hooks" might still be necessary. At this point, it's mostly a matter of: - I'm the one who knows the most about the powerpc PCI code as I wrote large chunks of it - I'm very very very busy with some other things at the moment So don't take my silence on these matters as a lack of interest, I think it's definitely all going in the right direction, I just don't have much bandwidth to consider the move of powerpc over just yet. Cheers, Ben.