From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755661AbcKKKKV (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Nov 2016 05:10:21 -0500 Received: from szxga02-in.huawei.com ([119.145.14.65]:10494 "EHLO szxga02-in.huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750776AbcKKKKS (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Nov 2016 05:10:18 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 3/3] ARM64 LPC: LPC driver implementation on Hip06 To: Arnd Bergmann , Gabriele Paoloni References: <1478576829-112707-1-git-send-email-yuanzhichang@hisilicon.com> <17821285.aIcTyCGn5n@wuerfel> <10334260.ztLXZ2Oynd@wuerfel> CC: "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "mark.rutland@arm.com" , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com" , "minyard@acm.org" , "linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" , "benh@kernel.crashing.org" , John Garry , "will.deacon@arm.com" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "xuwei (O)" , Linuxarm , "zourongrong@gmail.com" , "robh+dt@kernel.org" , "kantyzc@163.com" , "linux-serial@vger.kernel.org" , "catalin.marinas@arm.com" , "olof@lixom.net" , "liviu.dudau@arm.com" , "bhelgaas@googl e.com" , "zhichang.yuan02@gmail.com" From: "zhichang.yuan" Message-ID: <582598ED.6080803@hisilicon.com> Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 18:09:49 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <10334260.ztLXZ2Oynd@wuerfel> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.57.79.81] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, Arnd, On 2016/11/11 0:07, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Thursday, November 10, 2016 3:36:49 PM CET Gabriele Paoloni wrote: >> >> Where should we get the range from? For LPC we know that it is going >> Work on anything that is not used by PCI I/O space, and this is >> why we use [0, PCIBIOS_MIN_IO] > > It should be allocated the same way we allocate PCI config space > segments. This is currently done with the io_range list in > drivers/pci/pci.c, which isn't perfect but could be extended > if necessary. Based on what others commented here, I'd rather > make the differences between ISA/LPC and PCI I/O ranges smaller > than larger. > >>> Your current version has >>> >>> if (arm64_extio_ops->pfout) \ >>> arm64_extio_ops->pfout(arm64_extio_ops->devpara,\ >>> addr, value, sizeof(type)); \ >>> >>> Instead, just subtract the start of the range from the logical >>> port number to transform it back into a bus-local port number: >> >> These accessors do not operate on IO tokens: >> >> If (arm64_extio_ops->start > addr || arm64_extio_ops->end < addr) >> addr is not going to be an I/O token; in fact patch 2/3 imposes that >> the I/O tokens will start at PCIBIOS_MIN_IO. So from 0 to PCIBIOS_MIN_IO >> we have free physical addresses that the accessors can operate on. > > Ah, I missed that part. I'd rather not use PCIBIOS_MIN_IO to refer to > the logical I/O tokens, the purpose of that macro is really meant > for allocating PCI I/O port numbers within the address space of > one bus. > > Note that it's equally likely that whichever next platform needs > non-mapped I/O access like this actually needs them for PCI I/O space, > and that will use it on addresses registered to a PCI host bridge. > > If we separate the two steps: > > a) assign a range of logical I/O port numbers to a bus > b) register a set of helpers for redirecting logical I/O > port to a helper function > It seems that we need to add a new bus and the corresponding resource management which can also cover current PCI pio mapping, is it right? Thanks, Zhichang > then I think the code will get cleaner and more flexible. > It should actually then be able to replace the powerpc > specific implementation. > > Arnd > > . >