[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YhYVl9YaoPDwAXO4@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2022 13:08:07 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] serial: 8250_lpss: Switch to pcim_iomap() instead
of pci_ioremap_bar()
On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 08:02:10AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 10:14:16AM +0100, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> > On 16. 02. 22, 9:53, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 03:43:59PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > The pci_iounmap() doesn't cover all the cases where resource should
> > > > be unmapped. Instead of spreading it more, replace the pci_ioremap_bar()
> > > > with pcim_iomap() which uses managed resource approach.
> > >
> > > pcim_iomap requires the use of ioreadX/iowriteX and thus runtime
> > > overhead. So in doubt please add a pcim_ioremap_bar instead of forcing
> > > the legacy iomap/ioread/iowrite API onto modern drivers tht can't
> > > support legacy port I/O.
> >
> > Hmm, the driver combines pci_ioremap_bar with pci_iounmap. pci_iounmap does
> > the right thing after all, but is that correct? And this driver is not
> > alone, this shows more:
> > git grep -E 'pci_iounmap|pci_ioremap_bar' `git grep -l pci_iounmap \`git
> > grep -l pci_ioremap_bar\``
>
> I think it is wrong. It is not actively harmful unlike the the
> combination of pci_iomap and then later use of accessors from the
> ioremap family, but still not exactly a good idea.
>
> In a perfect world we'd have some different annotation from __iomem
> for the whole iomap family of functions.
So, what would be your suggestion for a) backportable change b) cleanup for
the current and future drivers?
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists