From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752755AbdCPSPB (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Mar 2017 14:15:01 -0400 Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:16201 "EHLO mga01.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752111AbdCPSO7 (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Mar 2017 14:14:59 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.36,173,1486454400"; d="scan'208";a="1143417057" Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 23:43:56 +0530 From: Rajneesh Bhardwaj To: Andy Shevchenko Cc: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan , Andy Shevchenko , Zha Qipeng , "dvhart@infradead.org" , Platform Driver , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] platform/x86: intel_pmc_ipc: fix io mem mapping size Message-ID: <20170316181356.GA19029@rajaneesh-OptiPlex-9010> References: <1ab8d18dd7f5428869e6e77026ac4206863eea08.1489634924.git.sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com> <20170316145203.GA23198@rajaneesh-OptiPlex-9010> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 06:05:39PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 4:52 PM, Rajneesh Bhardwaj > wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 08:32:53PM -0700, Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan wrote: > >> Mapping entire GCR mem region in this driver creates > >> mem region request conflict in sub devices that depend > >> on PMC. This creates driver probe failure in devices like > >> iTC0_wdt and telemetry device. > > > iTCO_WDT driver needs to check the BIT4 (NO_REBOOT) of PMC_CFG register > > (Offset: 0x1008) and this falls in GCR space. > > Are we talking about ACPI-enabled platform? > IIUC, you are referring to WDT enumerated by ACPI tables (WDAT, WDRT etc) ? On APL/BXT i think we pass the resource mapping to iTCO_WDT driver since acpi_has_watchdog provides the required protection. For non ACPI-enabled platforms we have this issue since iTCO_WDT driver anyway tries resource mapping when the iTCO_version >=2. Can someone please explain whether we can have iTCO_version >=2 for Intel Core SoCs as well or its for Atom only? > -- > With Best Regards, > Andy Shevchenko -- Best Regards, Rajneesh From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rajneesh Bhardwaj Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] platform/x86: intel_pmc_ipc: fix io mem mapping size Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 23:43:56 +0530 Message-ID: <20170316181356.GA19029@rajaneesh-OptiPlex-9010> References: <1ab8d18dd7f5428869e6e77026ac4206863eea08.1489634924.git.sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com> <20170316145203.GA23198@rajaneesh-OptiPlex-9010> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:16201 "EHLO mga01.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752111AbdCPSO7 (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Mar 2017 14:14:59 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: platform-driver-x86-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Andy Shevchenko Cc: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan , Andy Shevchenko , Zha Qipeng , "dvhart@infradead.org" , Platform Driver , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 06:05:39PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 4:52 PM, Rajneesh Bhardwaj > wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 08:32:53PM -0700, Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan wrote: > >> Mapping entire GCR mem region in this driver creates > >> mem region request conflict in sub devices that depend > >> on PMC. This creates driver probe failure in devices like > >> iTC0_wdt and telemetry device. > > > iTCO_WDT driver needs to check the BIT4 (NO_REBOOT) of PMC_CFG register > > (Offset: 0x1008) and this falls in GCR space. > > Are we talking about ACPI-enabled platform? > IIUC, you are referring to WDT enumerated by ACPI tables (WDAT, WDRT etc) ? On APL/BXT i think we pass the resource mapping to iTCO_WDT driver since acpi_has_watchdog provides the required protection. For non ACPI-enabled platforms we have this issue since iTCO_WDT driver anyway tries resource mapping when the iTCO_version >=2. Can someone please explain whether we can have iTCO_version >=2 for Intel Core SoCs as well or its for Atom only? > -- > With Best Regards, > Andy Shevchenko -- Best Regards, Rajneesh