From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753309AbaCKGvV (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Mar 2014 02:51:21 -0400 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.13]:50037 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752325AbaCKGvU (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Mar 2014 02:51:20 -0400 From: Arnd Bergmann To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Cc: Liviu Dudau , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , linaro-kernel , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , linux-pci , Liviu Dudau , LKML , Will Deacon , Tanmay Inamdar , Catalin Marinas , Bjorn Helgaas Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 6/6] pci: Add support for creating a generic host_bridge from device tree Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 07:50:24 +0100 Message-ID: <4254618.BlpDUOctDb@wuerfel> User-Agent: KMail/4.11.5 (Linux/3.11.0-18-generic; KDE/4.11.5; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <20140310215600.GA14968@bart.dudau.co.uk> References: <1394020137-1830-1-git-send-email-Liviu.Dudau@arm.com> <1469359.kil5iaOqdU@wuerfel> <20140310215600.GA14968@bart.dudau.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:Zkvk8EkEPe7erKKfVfEKjMAgTveLO+sw3Uy7PP5yMOS 5GtBqRoJsE0wTghJd07voFrBssu2rnGXAeET4gdNf83MeSQH9e GWWA5szW54FJA90/1R5MJ1GGmeKCYJ4QPovlQIDCwx9n31FDIH yPXKD82hqAsr+sKrzDilhQyJtrmE2QudGgqKPwx4DOnLFQPklE 18dbzP5Fb0mkbv5X/cobisNG+mKwSV+1fEA6EE0O5pP8ZkOCJZ YpATTVTF8XVR8a140bJ4uXuPwYlWjqEEqL6Jr9LJpDVkKHjtmj 4gV9/h+WUO7yOxGztvz0mCyRQ7jh6IhqFRJjyWk9c/WOfOnVv4 AIB8e8GgdXkQquPnvfCs= Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Monday 10 March 2014 21:56:00 Liviu Dudau wrote: > > PCI_IOBASE is always defined. See the discussion with Russell on this subject. > > include/asm-generic/io.h has at line 118: > > #ifndef PCI_IOBASE > #define PCI_IOBASE ((void __iomem *) 0) > #endif That is only defined for those that use asm-generic/pci.h, which most architectures don't. > I will go with my idea tomorrow. arm64 overwrite the implementation anyway, I > find it cleaner rather than having to do #ifdefs and/or ifs. I'd really hope we can get to a point where arm64 doesn't need any architecture specific code for this. It doesn't do anything special. Arnd