LKML Archive on
 help / color / Atom feed
From: Kenji Kaneshige <>
To: Adam Belay <>
Cc: Russell King <>,
	Grant Grundler <>,
	Andrew Morton <>, Greg KH <>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] PCI legacy I/O port free driver (take4)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 13:10:41 +0900
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

Adam Belay wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 07:34:41PM +0000, Russell King wrote:
>>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
>>I have another question (brought up by someone working on a series of
>>ARM machines which make heavy use of MMIO.)
>>Why isn't pci_enable_device_bars() sufficient - why do we have to
>>have another interface to say "we don't want BARs XXX" ?
>>Let's say that we have a device driver which does this sequence (with,
>>of course, error checking):
>>	pci_enable_device_bars(dev, 1<<1);
>>	pci_request_regions(dev);
>>(a) should PCI remember that only BAR 1 has been requested to be enabled,
>>    and as such shouldn't pci_request_regions() ignore BAR 0?
>>(b) should the PCI driver pass into pci_request_regions() (or even
>>    pci_request_regions_bars()) a bitmask of the BARs it wants to have
>>    requested, and similarly for pci_release_regions().
>>Basically, if BAR0 hasn't been enabled, has pci_request_regions() got
>>any business requesting it from the resource tree?
> I understand the point you're making, but I think this misrepresents what
> is actually happening.  From my understanding of the spec, it's not possible
> to disable individual bars (with the exception of the expansion ROM).  Rather
> there is one bit for IO enable and one bit for IOMMU enable.  Therefore, we
> can enable or disable all I/O ports, but there's really no in between.  If
> the device uses even one I/O port, it's still a huge loss because of the
> potential bridge window dependency.  Also, if a device has several I/O ports
> but the driver only wants to use one, all of the others must still be
> assigned.

I see. I think you are right.

In addition to the fact that there is one bit for IO enable and one
bit for MMIO enable, I think we should not enable I/O port (or MMIO)
of the device if not all the I/O port (or MMIO) regions are assigned
to the device because we must build a consistent address mapping
before enabling it.

It seems that using pci_enable_device_bars() is not a good idea.
If there is no objection, I'll design and implement take6 again.

Any comments?

Kenji Kaneshige

  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
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 [this message]
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