All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] arm64: enable pci resource mapping using sysfs
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 10:24:04 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170320102403.GC17263@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1489605496.4195.182.camel@infradead.org>

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 07:18:16PM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-03-15 at 17:54 +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > It's not so much "broken" as "not currently supported".
> 
> Yeah, I thought that when I inherited the commit, but didn't get as far
> as rephrasing it. Will do so.
> 
> > [...]
> > 
> > > 
> > > +#define HAVE_PCI_MMAP
> > > +extern int pci_mmap_page_range(struct pci_dev *dev, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> > > +			       enum pci_mmap_state mmap_state, int write_combine);
> > > +
> > Per the prior attempt at this [1], we only want to expose the sysfs
> > interface, and not the legacy procfs interface, and need the two
> > decoupled [2].
> 
> I do not like that idea. The procfs horridness is legacy, sure, but
> it's not actually an arch-specific interface. You get to mess with
> 'legacy' syscalls all you like on a new architecture, but there could
> exist arch-agnostic code which uses the procfs interface, surely?

Just to be clear here: I'm not against exposing the proc interface if
something actually needs it, but all the requests we've had for this have
been concerned only with the sysfs API. So I'd rather start with just that,
instead of exposing both and have new software written to the proc interface,
which we certainly want to discourage.

Will

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 1/3] arm64: enable pci resource mapping using sysfs
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 10:24:04 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170320102403.GC17263@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1489605496.4195.182.camel@infradead.org>

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 07:18:16PM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-03-15 at 17:54 +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > It's not so much "broken" as "not currently supported".
> 
> Yeah, I thought that when I inherited the commit, but didn't get as far
> as rephrasing it. Will do so.
> 
> > [...]
> > 
> > > 
> > > +#define HAVE_PCI_MMAP
> > > +extern int pci_mmap_page_range(struct pci_dev *dev, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> > > +			???????enum pci_mmap_state mmap_state, int write_combine);
> > > +
> > Per the prior attempt at this [1], we only want to expose the sysfs
> > interface, and not the legacy procfs interface, and need the two
> > decoupled [2].
> 
> I do not like that idea. The procfs horridness is legacy, sure, but
> it's not actually an arch-specific interface. You get to mess with
> 'legacy' syscalls all you like on a new architecture, but there could
> exist arch-agnostic code which uses the procfs interface, surely?

Just to be clear here: I'm not against exposing the proc interface if
something actually needs it, but all the requests we've had for this have
been concerned only with the sysfs API. So I'd rather start with just that,
instead of exposing both and have new software written to the proc interface,
which we certainly want to discourage.

Will

  reply	other threads:[~2017-03-20 10:24 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-03-15 17:17 [PATCH 1/3] arm64: enable pci resource mapping using sysfs David Woodhouse
2017-03-15 17:17 ` David Woodhouse
2017-03-15 17:17 ` David Woodhouse
2017-03-15 17:54 ` Mark Rutland
2017-03-15 17:54   ` Mark Rutland
2017-03-15 19:18   ` David Woodhouse
2017-03-15 19:18     ` David Woodhouse
2017-03-20 10:24     ` Will Deacon [this message]
2017-03-20 10:24       ` Will Deacon
2017-03-20 10:28       ` David Woodhouse
2017-03-20 10:28         ` David Woodhouse

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=20170320102403.GC17263@arm.com \
    --to=will.deacon@arm.com \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=dwmw2@infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    /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
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
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.