LKML Archive on
 help / color / Atom feed
From: Russell King <>
To: Grant Grundler <>
Cc: Kenji Kaneshige <>,
	Andrew Morton <>, Greg KH <>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] PCI legacy I/O port free driver (take4)
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 18:00:25 +0000
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

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   -
 maintainer of:  2.6 Serial core

  reply index

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:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

LKML Archive on

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror lkml/git/0.git
	git clone --mirror lkml/git/1.git
	git clone --mirror lkml/git/2.git
	git clone --mirror lkml/git/3.git
	git clone --mirror lkml/git/4.git
	git clone --mirror lkml/git/5.git
	git clone --mirror lkml/git/6.git
	git clone --mirror lkml/git/7.git
	git clone --mirror lkml/git/8.git
	git clone --mirror lkml/git/9.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 lkml lkml/ \
	public-inbox-index lkml

Example config snippet for mirrors

Newsgroup available over NNTP:

AGPL code for this site: git clone