[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150903014506.GR8051@wotan.suse.de>
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2015 03:45:07 +0200
From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...e.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...not-panic.com>, arnd@...db.de,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
schwidefsky@...ibm.com, heiko.carstens@...ibm.com,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, bp@...e.de, linux@...ck-us.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
rostedt@...dmis.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] asm-generic/pci_iomap.h: make custom PCI BAR requirements
explicit
On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 08:25:05AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 05:17:27PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...e.com>
> >
> > The S390 architecture requires a custom pci_iomap() implementation
> > as the asm-generic implementation assumes there are disjunctions
> > between PCI BARs, and on S390 PCI BAR are not disjunctive, S390 requires
> > the bar parameter in order to find the corresponding device and create
> > the mapping cookie.
> >
> > This clash with the asm-generic pci_iomap() implementation is implicit,
> > there are no current semantics to make this incompatability explicit.
> > Make the S390 PCI BAR non-disjunction incompatibility explicit, and
> > also pave the way for alternative incompatibilities to be defined.
> >
> > While at it, as with the ioremap*() variants, since we have no clear
> > semantics yet well defined provide a solution for them that returns
> > NULL. This allows architectures to move forward by defining pci_ioremap*()
> > variants without requiring immediate changes to all architectures. Each
> > architecture then can implement their own solution as needed and
> > when they get to it.
>
> Now that you have the config symbol available why not move the S390
> implementation to generic code based on that can kill of
> asm/pci_iomap.h? Seems like we're really not dealing with something
> inherent to the architecture, but two possible implementations based
> on architecture constraints.
That would be the other approach to take too, but perhaps that can wait
until yet another architecture with similar requirement pops up.
Luis
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists