From: Russell King <email@example.com> To: Grant Grundler <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: Kenji Kaneshige <email@example.com>, Andrew Morton <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Greg KH <email@example.com>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] PCI legacy I/O port free driver (take4) Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 18:00:25 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20060302180025.GC28895@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20060302172436.GC22711@colo.lackof.org> On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 10:24:36AM -0700, Grant Grundler wrote: > On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 03:50:57PM +0000, Russell King wrote: > > I've been wondering whether this "no_ioport" flag is the correct approach, > > or whether it's adding to complexity when it isn't really required. > > I think it's the simplest solution to allowing a driver > to indicate which resources it wants to use. It solves > the problem of I/O Port resource allocation sufficiently > well. It's not really "I/O port resource allocation" though - the resources have already been allocated and potentially programmed into the BARs well before the driver gets anywhere near the device. > > In the non-Intel world, the kernel itself sets up the PCI bus mappings, > > mappings, yes. But many of the architectures depend on (or assume) > firmware will assign appropriate resources. The problem is firmware > runs out of I/O Port resources. Are you implying that somehow resources are allocated at pci_enable_device time? If so, shouldn't we be thinking of moving completely to that model rather than having yet-another-pci-setup-model. Let's see - we have the i386 method, the drivers/pci/setup-* method, and it sounds like some pci_enable_device() method now. The problem is that the "no_ioport" method is completely useless for the drivers/pci/setup-* method since that information from the drivers comes well after the PCI setup code has been run. > Several people have already agreed the driver needs to indicate which > resource it wants to work with. I don't see how the arch PCI support > can provide that "knowledge". What I'm saying is that we need to unify this stuff, rather than keep bluring and overloading the interfaces. Otherwise we'll end up with drivers developed on one platform which have one expectation from the PCI API, which could potentially be different from drivers developed on some other platform. Let's have some uniformity - and a solution which can fit everyone - that's all I'm asking. -- Russell King Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/ maintainer of: 2.6 Serial core
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-03-02 18:00 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2006-03-02 15:12 Kenji Kaneshige 2006-03-02 15:14 ` [PATCH 1/4] PCI legacy I/O port free driver (take4) - Add no_ioport flag into pci_dev Kenji Kaneshige 2006-03-02 15:16 ` [PATCH 2/4] PCI legacy I/O port free driver (take4) - Update Documentation/pci.txt Kenji Kaneshige 2006-03-02 15:18 ` [PATCH 3/4] PCI legacy I/O port free driver (take4) - Make Intel e1000 driver legacy I/O port free Kenji Kaneshige 2006-03-02 15:20 ` [PATCH 4/4] PCI legacy I/O port free driver (take4) - Make Emulex lpfc " Kenji Kaneshige 2006-03-02 15:50 ` [PATCH 0/4] PCI legacy I/O port free driver (take4) Russell King 2006-03-02 16:23 ` Kenji Kaneshige 2006-03-02 16:41 ` Greg KH 2006-03-02 17:24 ` Grant Grundler 2006-03-02 18:00 ` Russell King [this message] 2006-03-02 18:12 ` Jeff Garzik 2006-03-02 19:13 ` Russell King 2006-03-02 20:01 ` Jeff Garzik 2006-03-02 19:23 ` Grant Grundler 2006-03-02 19:34 ` Russell King 2006-03-02 19:50 ` Roland Dreier 2006-03-03 3:17 ` Kenji Kaneshige 2006-03-03 6:59 ` Kenji Kaneshige 2006-03-06 1:38 ` Kenji Kaneshige 2006-03-10 2:10 ` Adam Belay 2006-03-10 4:10 ` Kenji Kaneshige 2006-03-10 7:49 ` Russell King 2006-03-10 8:33 ` Russell King 2006-03-13 5:47 ` Kenji Kaneshige
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20060302180025.GC28895@flint.arm.linux.org.uk \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --subject='Re: [PATCH 0/4] PCI legacy I/O port free driver (take4)' \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.