From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Return-Path: From: Arnd Bergmann To: Bjorn Helgaas Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Bjorn Helgaas , linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Petazzoni , Jason Cooper , Scott Branden , Jon Mason , Jingoo Han , Pratyush Anand , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rfi@lists.rocketboards.org, linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org, Simon Horman , Thierry Reding , Tanmay Inamdar , Ray Jui , linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org, Ley Foon Tan , Michal Simek , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?S=F6ren?= Brinkmann Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 00/25] PCI: Request host bridge window resources Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2016 15:25:46 +0200 Message-ID: <3552943.lb56sJA8nL@wuerfel> In-Reply-To: <20160607131105.GA2543@localhost> References: <20160606225630.20936.77349.stgit@bhelgaas-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com> <3416214.BpvATlfaN7@wuerfel> <20160607131105.GA2543@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" List-ID: On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 8:11:05 AM CEST Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > > > What do you think is the correct behavior here, should the driver only > > request the PIO range with parent=ioport_resource, or should it also > > request the MMIO window for the I/O ports with parent=iomem_resource? > > In the latter case, any idea how that can be generalized? > > I think it should request both because I think iomem_resource should > contain everything in the memory map. This would be required if we ever > did any significant reassignment of top-level devices, e.g., ACPI devices. Ok. Should we try to pass the mmio resource for the I/O window to the devm_request_pci_bus_resources() function along with the other arguments then? As far as I can tell, it should not go into the resource list because it is not something the PCI core code should access the way it handles the other resources. Arnd