From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jesse Barnes Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 23:15:51 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH] add legacy I/O and memory access routines to /proc/bus/pci API Message-Id: <200412151515.51450.jbarnes@engr.sgi.com> List-Id: References: <200412140941.56116.jbarnes@engr.sgi.com> <200412150927.51733.jbarnes@engr.sgi.com> <20041215210346.GK9923@schnapps.adilger.int> In-Reply-To: <20041215210346.GK9923@schnapps.adilger.int> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Andreas Dilger Cc: linux-pci@atrey.karlin.mff.cu, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, benh@kernel.crashing.org, bjorn.helgaas@hp.com On Wednesday, December 15, 2004 1:03 pm, Andreas Dilger wrote: > On Dec 15, 2004 09:27 -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote: > > +write > > + Legacy I/O port space reads and writes must also be to a file > > + position >64k--the kernel will route them to the target device. > > Shouldn't that be < 64k based on the description of lseek? Err.. yes > > +lseek > > + Can be used to set the current file position. Note that the file > > + size is limited to 64k as that's how big legacy I/O space is. > > > > +ioctl > > + Note that not all architectures support the *_MMAP_* or *_RW_* ioctl > > + commands. If they're not supported, ioctl will return -EINVAL. > > Shouldn't they return -ENOTTY? That indicates to the caller that the > ioctl isn't handled, vs -EINVAL which indicates bad value being passed > (e.g. bad write size). Maybe, but that's not how /proc/bus/pci behaves right now... Jesse