[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160502071912.GC27465@ulmo.ba.sec>
Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 09:19:12 +0200
From: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>, catalin.marinas@....com,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, will.deacon@....com,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
Tomasz Nowicki <tn@...ihalf.com>, ddaney@...iumnetworks.com,
robert.richter@...iumnetworks.com, msalter@...hat.com,
Liviu.Dudau@....com, jchandra@...adcom.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hanjun.guo@...aro.org,
Suravee.Suthikulpanit@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] [RFC] pci: tegra: use new pci_register_host interface
On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 01:01:39AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> Tegra is one of the remaining platforms that still use the
> traditional pci_common_init_dev() interface for probing PCI
> host bridges.
>
> This demonstrates how to convert it to the pci_register_host
> interface I just added in a previous patch. This leads to
> a more linear probe sequence that can handle errors better
> because we avoid callbacks into the driver, and it makes
> the driver architecture independent.
>
> As a side note, I should mention that I noticed this driver
> does not register any IORESOURCE_IO resource with the bus,
> but instead registers the I/O port window as a memory
> resource, which is surely a bug.
How's that? I thought pci_add_resource_offset() was exactly what was
registering the I/O resource, using the resource's flags to determine
what type to register. Do we have to use a different API to register an
I/O resource in particular?
Overall this change looks really good. How do you want to proceed with
the series? Would it be helpful if I picked up this patch and submit it
to Bjorn for v4.8, provided that the core changes make it in?
Thierry
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (820 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists