From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Murray Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 1/3] of/pci: Unify pci_process_bridge_OF_ranges from Microblaze and PowerPC Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 09:01:42 +0100 Message-ID: <20130507080142.GA8808@arm.com> References: <1366627295-16964-1-git-send-email-Andrew.Murray@arm.com> <1366627295-16964-2-git-send-email-Andrew.Murray@arm.com> <1367721709.11982.37.camel@pasglop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1367721709.11982.37.camel@pasglop> Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0 List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: List-archive: To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Cc: "linux-mips@linux-mips.org" , linuxppc-dev , "jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com" , "linux@arm.linux.org.uk" , "siva.kallam@samsung.com" , "linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" , "devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org" , "jg1.han@samsung.com" , Liviu Dudau , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org" , "kgene.kim@samsung.com" , "bhelgaas@google.com" , "suren.reddy@samsung.com" List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Sun, May 05, 2013 at 03:41:49AM +0100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Mon, 2013-04-22 at 11:41 +0100, Andrew Murray wrote: > > The pci_process_bridge_OF_ranges function, used to parse the "ranges" > > property of a PCI host device, is found in both Microblaze and PowerPC > > architectures. These implementations are nearly identical. This patch > > moves this common code to a common place. > > What's happening with this ? I'd like to avoid that patch for now > as I'm doing some changes to pci_process_bridge_OF_ranges > which are fairly urgent (I might even stick them in the current > merge window) to deal with memory windows having separate offsets. There were no objections to this latest revision until now and it is currently sitting with Jason Cooper (mvebu-next/pcie). [1] > > There's also a few hacks in there that are really ppc specific... > > I think the right long term approach is to change the way powerpc > (and microblaze ?) initializes PCI host bridges. Move it away from > setup_arch() (which is a PITA anyway since it's way too early) to > an early init call of some sort, and encapsulate the new struct > pci_host_bridge. > > We can then directly configure the host bridge windows rather > than having this "intermediary" set of resources in our pci_controller > and in fact move most of the fields from pci_controller to > pci_host_bridge to the point where the former can remain as a > simple platform specific wrapper if needed. This is a view that was also shared by Bjorn [2] when I attempted to submit a patchset which moves struct pci_controller to asm-generic. > > So for new stuff (hint: DT based ARM PCI) or stuff that has to deal with > a lot less archaic platforms (hint: Microblaze), I'd recommend going > straight for that approach rather than perpetuating the PowerPC code > which I'll try to deal with in the next few monthes. The motativation for my patchsets were to give a way for ARM PCI host bridge drivers to parse the DT ranges property, but this snow-balled into unifying pci_process_bridge_OF_ranges. My v8 patchset provides a of_pci_range_parser which is used directly by a few ARM PCI DT host bridge drivers, this has been generally accepted and tested. I don't see why this can't remain and so I'd really like to keep this around. Grant, Benjamin would you be happy for me to resubmit this series which provides the of_pci_range_parser which will be used by the separate implementations of pci_process_bridge_OF_ranges in PowerPC/Microblaze? Benjamin are you able to still use of_pci_range_parser in your 'Support per-aperture memory offset' patch? Thanks, Andrew Murray [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/4/22/505 [2] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/2487671 > > Cheers, > Ben. > > >