From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1753032AbcKHXOl (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Tue, 8 Nov 2016 18:14:41 -0500
Received: from gate.crashing.org ([63.228.1.57]:56414 "EHLO gate.crashing.org"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1751671AbcKHXOj (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 8 Nov 2016 18:14:39 -0500
Message-ID: <1478646779.7430.66.camel@kernel.crashing.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 2/3] ARM64 LPC: Add missing range exception for
 special ISA
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        "zhichang.yuan" <yuanzhichang@hisilicon.com>
Cc: catalin.marinas@arm.com, will.deacon@arm.com, robh+dt@kernel.org,
        bhelgaas@google.com, olof@lixom.net, arnd@arndb.de,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxarm@huawei.com,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-serial@vger.kernel.org, minyard@acm.org, liviu.dudau@arm.com,
        zourongrong@gmail.com, john.garry@huawei.com,
        gabriele.paoloni@huawei.com, zhichang.yuan02@gmail.com,
        kantyzc@163.com, xuwei5@hisilicon.com, marc.zyngier@arm.com
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2016 10:12:59 +1100
In-Reply-To: <20161108114953.GB15297@leverpostej>
References: <1478576829-112707-1-git-send-email-yuanzhichang@hisilicon.com>
         <1478576829-112707-3-git-send-email-yuanzhichang@hisilicon.com>
         <20161108114953.GB15297@leverpostej>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.20.5 (3.20.5-1.fc24) 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, 2016-11-08 at 11:49 +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> 
> My understanding of ISA (which may be flawed) is that it's not part of
> the PCI host bridge, but rather on x86 it happens to share the IO space
> with PCI.

Sort-of. On some systems it actually goes through PCI and there's a
PCI->ISA bridge that uses substractive decoding to the legacy devices.

> So, how about this becomes:
> 
>   Hisilicon Hip06 SoCs implement a Low Pin Count (LPC) controller, which
>   provides access to some legacy ISA devices.
> 
> I believe that we could theoretically have multiple independent LPC/ISA
> busses, as is possible with PCI on !x86 systems. If the current ISA code
> assumes a singleton bus, I think that's something that needs to be fixed
> up more generically.
> 
> I don't see why we should need any architecture-specific code here. Why
> can we not fix up the ISA bus code in drivers/of/address.c such that it
> handles multiple ISA bus instances, and translates all sub-device
> addresses relative to the specific bus instance?

What in that code prevents that today ?

Cheers,
Ben.