From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933566AbaJVXUm (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Oct 2014 19:20:42 -0400 Received: from gw-1.arm.linux.org.uk ([78.32.30.217]:41631 "EHLO pandora.arm.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933335AbaJVXUk (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Oct 2014 19:20:40 -0400 Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 00:20:21 +0100 From: Russell King - ARM Linux To: Stephen Boyd Cc: Grant Likely , Stanimir Varbanov , Rob Herring , Arnd Bergmann , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Mark Brown , Lee Jones , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] RFC: add function for localbus address Message-ID: <20141022232021.GF27405@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <20140729234522.E9FF1C40738@trevor.secretlab.ca> <1409672700-21697-1-git-send-email-svarbanov@mm-sol.com> <20140908145204.8ADC2C40AE5@trevor.secretlab.ca> <540E1014.8090102@codeaurora.org> <20140914044610.913E9C4102A@trevor.secretlab.ca> <54483746.9060104@codeaurora.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <54483746.9060104@codeaurora.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 04:01:26PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote: > Where did this end up? When we talked at Connect I think we settled on > exploring a driver core specific API like dev_get_localbus_address() > that calls of_get_localbus_address() for devices with an of_node and in > the future it could call something like acpi_get_localbus_address() when > there's an acpi_node. I believe the biggest concern is that we're making > an API that is OF or platform bus specific when it doesn't need to be. > Making a driver core specific API avoids this problem by making it bus > agnostic. Given how little information there is in the original patch as to exactly what problem this is addressing, I could be getting the wrong end of the stick here. Is this about trying to have a way to obtain the bus local addresses associated with CPU-view resources? If so, how about looking towards PCI, which has had this problem for the last 15+ years, where PCI bus addresses are not necessarily the same as CPU physical addresses? There, we don't end up with multiple addresses specified in resources. We instead have a way to translate between resources and bus-local addresses, which IMHO is far nicer and less error-prone than having to specify the same information twice, once with an offset and once without. -- FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.5Mbps down 400kbps up according to speedtest.net.