Message-ID: <849d70bddde1cfcb3ab1163970a148ff447ee94b.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL 1/2] asm-generic: rework PCI I/O space access
From:   Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@linux.ibm.com>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org>
Cc:     John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-pci <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Date:   Fri, 17 Dec 2021 14:52:05 +0100
In-Reply-To: <CAK8P3a2eZ25PLSqEf_wmGs912WK8xRMuQHik2yAKj-WRQnDuRg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAK8P3a2oZ-+qd3Nhpy9VVXCJB3DU5N-y-ta2JpP0t6NHh=GVXw@mail.gmail.com>
         <CAHk-=wg80je=K7madF4e7WrRNp37e3qh6y10Svhdc7O8SZ_-8g@mail.gmail.com>
         <CAK8P3a1D5DzmNGsEPQomkyMCmMrtD6pQ11JRMh78vbY53edp-Q@mail.gmail.com>
         <CAK8P3a0MNbx-iuzW_-=0ab6-TTZzwV-PT_6gAC1Gp5PgYyHcrA@mail.gmail.com>
         <db043b76-880d-5fad-69cf-96abcd9cd34f@huawei.com>
         <CAK8P3a3HHeP+Gw_k2P7Qtig0OmErf0HN30G22+qHic_uZTh11Q@mail.gmail.com>
         <a74dfb1f-befd-92ce-4c30-233cb08e04d3@huawei.com>
         <CAK8P3a3B4FCaPPHhzBdpkv0fsjE0jREwGFCdPeHEDHxxRBEjng@mail.gmail.com>
         <5e8dfbd2-a6c0-6d02-53e9-1f29aebcc44e@huawei.com>
         <CAK8P3a08Zcyx0J4_LGAfU_AtUyEK+XtQJxYBQ52VXfWu8-o8_w@mail.gmail.com>
         <dd2d49ef-3154-3c87-67b9-c134567ba947@huawei.com>
         <CAK8P3a3KTaa-AwCOjhaASMx63B3DUBZCZe6RKWk-=Qu7xr_ijQ@mail.gmail.com>
         <47744c7bce7b7bb37edee7f249d61dc57ac1fbc5.camel@linux.ibm.com>
         <CAK8P3a2eZ25PLSqEf_wmGs912WK8xRMuQHik2yAKj-WRQnDuRg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
MIME-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 2021-12-17 at 14:32 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 2:19 PM Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> > I've had some time to look into this a bit. As a refreshed starting
> > point I have rebased Arnd's patch to v5.16-rc5. Since I'm not sure how
> > to handle authorship and it's very early I haven't sent it as RFC but
> > it's available as a patch from my GitHub here:
> > https://gist.github.com/niklas88/a08fe76bdf9f5798500fccea6583e275
> > 
> > I have incorporated the following findings from this thread already:
> > 
> > - Added HAS_IOPORT to arch Kconfigs
> > - Added "config LEGACY_PCI" to drivers/pci/Kconfig
> > - Fixed CONFIG_HAS_IOPORT typo in asm-generic/io.h
> > - Removed LEGACY_PCI dependency of i2c-i801.
> >   Which is also used in current gen Intel platforms
> >   and depends on x86 anyway.
> > 
> > I have tested this on s390 with HAS_IOPORT=n and allyesconfig as well
> > as running it with defconfig. I've also been using it on my Ryzen 3990X
> > workstation with LEGACY_PCI=n for a few days. I do get about 60 MiB
> > fewer modules compared with a similar config of v5.15.8. Hard to say
> > which other systems might miss things of course.
> > 
> > I have not yet worked on the discussed IOPORT_NATIVE flag. Mostly I'm
> > wondering two things. For one it feels like that could be a separate
> > change on top since HAS_IOPORT + LEGACY_PCI is already quite big.
> > Secondly I'm wondering about good ways of identifying such drivers and
> > how much this overlaps with the ISA config flag.
> > 
> > I'd of course appreciate feedback. If you agree this is still
> > worthwhile to persue I'd think the next step would be trying to
> > refactor this into more manageable patches.
> 
> Thanks a lot for restarting this work! I think this all looks reasonable
> (a lot was my original patch anyway, so of course I think that ;)), but
> it would be good to split it up into multiple patches.

Yes definitely.

> 
> The CONFIG_LEGACY_PCI should take care of a lot of it, and I
> think that can be a single patch. I'd expand the Kconfig description
> to explain that this also covers PCIe devices that use the legacy
> I/O space even if they do not have a PCIe-to-PCI bridge in them.
> 
> The introduction of CONFIG_HAS_IOPORT, plus selecting it from
> the respective architectures makes sense as another patch, but
> I would make that separate from the #ifdef and 'depends on'
> changes to individual subsystems or drivers, as they are
> better reviewed separately.
> 
>         Arnd

Sounds like a plan. How should I mark authorship in the split up
patches. I definitely still see you as the main author to all of this
but of course I'll have to do quite a bit of editing and you shouldn't
get blamed for any mistakes I make. So not sure how to handle Sign-off-
bys and git's author property.