From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Wei Yang Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 02/12] PCI: OF: Parse and map the IRQ when adding the PCI device. Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 09:44:01 +0800 Message-ID: <20140819014401.GB9558@richard> References: <1407860725-25202-1-git-send-email-Liviu.Dudau@arm.com> <1407860725-25202-3-git-send-email-Liviu.Dudau@arm.com> <20140814145804.GA5586@richard> <20140814154959.GG25761@e106497-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20140815085632.GA4954@richard> <20140815103052.GD27553@e106497-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20140818142550.GN20043@localhost> Reply-To: Wei Yang Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140818142550.GN20043@localhost> Sender: linux-pci-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Catalin Marinas Cc: Liviu Dudau , Wei Yang , Bjorn Helgaas , Will Deacon , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Arnd Bergmann , Russell King , Tanmay Inamdar , Grant Likely , Sinan Kaya , Jingoo Han , Kukjin Kim , Suravee Suthikulanit , linux-pci , linux-arch , LKML , Device Tree ML , LAKML List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 03:25:50PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: >... >> Well, it will become necessary as old code gets dismantled and converted towards >> this patchset. To give you an example that I'm familiar with, for arch/arm the >> host bridge drivers have moved into drivers/pci/host, but they still depend/use >> the bios32 infrastructure that takes care of setting up the irq. When they switch >> to my version they would have to go and debug the "irq not being assigned" issue >> and it is quite likely that some of the people doing the conversion will complain >> about my code rather than understanding the issue. What I'm trying to do is to >> make switching to my patchset as painless as possible, with a cleanup to remove >> redundant operations coming after the switchover. > >While the goal is fine, until we see a common pattern for what needs to >go into pcibios_add_device() I think we should have an arm64-specific >implementation (and probably an arm32 specific one as well). I can see >powerpc uses it for setting the DMA ops. Would we have a similar need on >arm64 to choose between coherent and non-coherent dma_ops? Liviu, I have the same feeling with Catalin. An arm64-specific implementation of pcibios_add_device() would be better. No more other concerns from my side. > >Also at some point we'll get ACPI support, so I'm not sure what we do >with assigning the dev->irq here but definitely of_* functions won't >work. > >-- >Catalin -- Richard Yang Help you, Help me