linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 3/3] arm64: Add architecture support for PCI

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1394950946.15098.111.camel@pasglop>
Date:	Sun, 16 Mar 2014 17:22:26 +1100
From:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:	Liviu Dudau <Liviu.Dudau@....com>,
	Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@....com>,
	linux-pci <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
	Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@....com>,
	linaro-kernel <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	LAKML <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Tanmay Inamdar <tinamdar@....com>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 3/3] arm64: Add architecture support for PCI

On Fri, 2014-03-14 at 20:10 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > As for the other two functions, I've no special attachment to where they are present
> > and I'm happy to move them into drivers/pci on the condition that the patchset doesn't
> > double in size. The reason why I'm weary of touching other architectures in a significant
> > way is the current lack of engineering bandwidth and way of testing all the architectures.
> > My low friction approach has been to introduce them in arm64 and then slowly move them
> > into core (and yes, I know about good intentions and the road to hell.)
> 
> I think everyone working on PCI is fed up with having arch-specific implementations
> of all these, and Bjorn has been very supportive of generic infrastructure in the
> past. Even just adding a generic infrastructure in a common place that is used
> only by one architecture in my mind would be a significant improvement.

I agree, it's a reasonable approach and microblaze which is simple and just "copied"
powerpc originally would be a good one to move over as well.

powerpc itself has many historical quirks and while I'm interested in a common
implementation, it will take me a bit of spare time to get through things and
figure out what can be done there and what "hooks" might still be necessary.

At this point, it's mostly a matter of:

 - I'm the one who knows the most about the powerpc PCI code as I wrote large
chunks of it

 - I'm very very very busy with some other things at the moment

So don't take my silence on these matters as a lack of interest, I think it's
definitely all going in the right direction, I just don't have much bandwidth
to consider the move of powerpc over just yet.

Cheers,
Ben.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/