Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 11 May 2021 03:24:29 +0100
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To:     Ansuel Smith <ansuelsmth@gmail.com>
Cc:     Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        Abbott Liu <liuwenliang@huawei.com>,
        Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmerdabbelt@google.com>,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm: Enlarge IO_SPACE_LIMIT needed for some SoC
Message-ID: <YJnq3Y3/I1kdV1Ov@casper.infradead.org>
References: <20210511021656.17719-1-ansuelsmth@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210511021656.17719-1-ansuelsmth@gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 04:16:54AM +0200, Ansuel Smith wrote:
> Ipq8064 SoC requires larger IO_SPACE_LIMIT on second and third pci port.

Do you really?  I mean, yes, theoretically, I understand it, the
hardware supports 64kB of I/O port space per root port.  But I/O
port space is rather deprecated these days.  My laptop has precisely
two devices with I/O ports, one with 64 bytes and the other with 32
bytes.  Would you really suffer by allocating 16kB of I/O port
space to each root port?