From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Will Deacon Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/6] pci: Introduce pci_register_io_range() helper function. Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 15:14:45 +0100 Message-ID: <20140626141444.GB5134@arm.com> References: <1394811272-1547-1-git-send-email-Liviu.Dudau@arm.com> <20140405001953.GE15806@google.com> <20140407083120.GE17163@e106497-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <5183143.FxBNM0xTAV@wuerfel> <20140626085926.GB11244@arm.com> <20140626093029.GB12812@e106497-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20140626141138.GC15296@arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140626141138.GC15296@arm.com> Sender: linux-pci-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Catalin Marinas Cc: Liviu Dudau , Bjorn Helgaas , Arnd Bergmann , linux-pci , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , linaro-kernel , LKML , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , LAKML , Tanmay Inamdar , Grant Likely , Jon Masters List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 03:11:38PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 10:30:29AM +0100, Liviu Dudau wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 09:59:26AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > > Although a bit late, I'm raising this now and hopefully we'll come to a > > > conclusion soon. Delaying arm64 PCIe support even further is not a real > > > option, which leaves us with: > > > > > > 1. Someone else (with enough PCIe knowledge) volunteering to take over > > > soon or > > > 2. Dropping Liviu's work and going for an arm64-specific implementation > > > (most likely based on the arm32 implementation, see below) > [...] > > > In conclusion, unless someone volunteers for the first option fairly > > > soon, we'll post the alternative patches for review and take it from > > > there. > > > > That would be a huge step backwards IMO and a huge dissapointment. If > > you go with the alternative patches from Will you will basically reset > > every partner's implementation that has been built on top of my > > patches (when they did so with the understanding that my series will be > > the one ARM will support and publish) *and* make anyone's attempt to > > create a generic implementation harder, as they will have to undo this > > code to remove the arch-specific parts. > > I fully agree and the alternative patchset is definitely _not_ my > preferred solution. You can read this email as a request for help to > complete the work (whether it comes from ARM, Linaro or other interested > parties). I don't mean taking over the whole patchset but potentially > helping with other arch conversion (microblaze, arm multi-platform). I feel it's also worth pointing out that I didn't write that code with the intention of getting it merged, nor as a competing solution to what Liviu was proposing at the time. It was merely a development tool to enable some of the SMMU and GICv3 work that Marc and I have been working on recently. Will