[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <877fefdf-969d-bc46-3233-f988ccfe4c74@free.fr>
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2017 01:42:47 +0200
From: Mason <slash.tmp@...e.fr>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
Cc: Marc Gonzalez <marc_gonzalez@...madesigns.com>,
Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-pci <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thibaud Cornic <thibaud_cornic@...madesigns.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 2/3] PCI: Add tango PCIe host bridge support
On 04/07/2017 17:58, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> It's definitely a hassle to support chips with different register
> layouts. Your hardware guys are really making your life hard :)
Now where did I put my foam bat...
> If the chips are fundamentally different, i.e., if they *operate*
> differently in addition to having a different register layout, you
> could make two separate drivers.
It's the exact same underlying IP. Revision 2 is only a
bug fix rev. IIUC, some of the fixes lead to adding a
register here, removing a register there... and I don't
think the HW dev ever considered the pain of supporting
both revs within a single driver.
This dual support explains some of the peculiarities
you noted in my submission.
Regards.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists