[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.2205041516110.9548@angie.orcam.me.uk>
Date: Wed, 4 May 2022 15:24:39 +0100 (BST)
From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@...am.me.uk>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>
cc: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>,
Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@...ux.ibm.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-pci <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
Dominik Brodowski <linux@...inikbrodowski.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 25/39] pcmcia: add HAS_IOPORT dependencies
On Wed, 4 May 2022, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > POWER9 is another architecture with no port I/O space[1]:
>
> POWER9 is just an implementation of the power architecture
> that has a particular PCI host bridge. I would assume that
> arch/powerpc/ would continue to set HAS_IOPORT because
> it knows how to access I/O ports at compile-time.
Well, yes, except I would expect POWER9_CPU (and any higher versions we
eventually get) to clear HAS_IOPORT. Generic configurations (GENERIC_CPU)
would set HAS_IOPORT of course, as would any lower architecture variants
that do or may support port I/O (it's not clear to me if there are any
that do not). Ideally a generic configuration would not issue accesses to
random MMIO locations for port I/O accesses via `inb'/`outb', etc. for
systems that do not support port I/O (which it now does, or at least used
to until recently).
Maciej
Powered by blists - more mailing lists