Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751565AbWCBPvN (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Mar 2006 10:51:13 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751566AbWCBPvN (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Mar 2006 10:51:13 -0500 Received: from caramon.arm.linux.org.uk ([212.18.232.186]:25100 "EHLO caramon.arm.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751565AbWCBPvL (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Mar 2006 10:51:11 -0500 Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 15:50:57 +0000 From: Russell King To: Kenji Kaneshige Cc: Andrew Morton , Greg KH , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-pci@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] PCI legacy I/O port free driver (take4) Message-ID: <20060302155056.GB28895@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> Mail-Followup-To: Kenji Kaneshige , Andrew Morton , Greg KH , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-pci@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz References: <44070B62.3070608@jp.fujitsu.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <44070B62.3070608@jp.fujitsu.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1542 Lines: 36 On Fri, Mar 03, 2006 at 12:12:34AM +0900, Kenji Kaneshige wrote: > Hi Andrew, Greg, > > Here is an updated set of patches for PCI legacy I/O port free > driver. It incorporates all of the feedbacks. I rebased it against the > latest -mm kernel (2.6.16-rc5-mm1). > > Could you consider applying this to -mm tree? I've been wondering whether this "no_ioport" flag is the correct approach, or whether it's adding to complexity when it isn't really required. In the non-Intel world, the kernel itself sets up the PCI bus mappings, and any IO bars which it can't satisfy might also need to be gracefully handled. Currently, we just go 'printk("whoops, didn't allocate resource")' and leave the BAR containing whatever random junk it contained before, along with the resource containing whatever random junk pci_bus_alloc_resource() decided to leave in it. In such cases, I would suggest that the method of signalling that IO should not be used is to have the IO resource structures cleared out - if the IO resources aren't valid, they should not contain something which could be interpreted as valid. Maybe something like this should be done for the "legacy IO port" case as well? -- Russell King Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/ maintainer of: 2.6 Serial core - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/