[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180305183938.GB20086@lst.de>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2018 19:39:38 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Nipun Gupta <nipun.gupta@....com>,
will.deacon@....com, mark.rutland@....com, catalin.marinas@....com,
iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, robh+dt@...nel.org,
m.szyprowski@...sung.com, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
joro@...tes.org, leoyang.li@....com, shawnguo@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, bharat.bhushan@....com,
stuyoder@...il.com, laurentiu.tudor@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] dma-mapping: support fsl-mc bus
On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 03:48:32PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote:
> Unfortunately for us, fsl-mc is conceptually rather like PCI in that it's
> software-discoverable and the only thing described in DT is the bus "host",
> thus we need the same sort of thing as for PCI to map from the child
> devices back to the bus root in order to find the appropriate firmware
> node. Worse than PCI, though, we wouldn't even have the option of
> describing child devices statically in firmware at all, since it's actually
> one of these runtime-configurable "build your own network accelerator"
> hardware pools where userspace gets to create and destroy "devices" as it
> likes.
I really hate the PCI special case just as much. Maybe we just
need a dma_configure method on the bus, and move PCI as well as fsl-mc
to it.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists