[lkml]   [2010]   [Jan]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: xilinx-pci driver and pci in general
    On Wed, 2010-01-13 at 16:23 +0100, Michal Simek wrote:

    > The main problems are:
    > ppc use ppc_md struct which we don't have it on Microblaze.
    > xilinx-pci driver uses exclude_device function. This function is used in
    > indirect_pci.c too. There could be a way to move that function directly
    > to pci_controller structure which could be useful for other controllers
    > too. What do you think?
    > Then there are some other ppc_md. calling like pcibios_after_init which
    > if I see correctly not used for ppc too.

    We may not be using after_init() anymore in which case you are welcome
    to send a patch to remove it :-)

    As for the others, well ... maybe you can do wrappers for these that
    call into ppc_md. on powerpc and into some kind of arch_pci_ops. that
    the platform provides on microblaze ?

    I'm not sure moving them into the pci_controller is the best way to go

    > The next thing is that some files contains asm/machdep.h which could be
    > added to asm/pci-bridge.h and the same is for asm/ppc-pci.h

    Yeah, moving includes like that is ok.

    > Files contains CONFIG_PPC_OF and we would like to use only CONFIG_OF.
    > I remember any discuss around but not sure what was the conclusion on
    > powerpc.

    I think that should be allright, Grant, any objection there ?

    > Part of headers are the same that's why there will be a space to move
    > them to asm-generic.

    If you can convince other archs that it makes sense to do so ? :-)

    > Anyway: I look at your dma-mapping.h and you can use
    > asm-generic/dma-mapping-common.h as I am using.

    Not just quite yet, there's still some stuff we need to cleanup with
    the !coherent cases.

    > Then I have some question about EARLY_PCI_OP in ppc_32.c. Is there any
    > reason to use early_##rw##_config_##size fucntions instead of proper
    > pci_bus_##rw##_config_##size functions?
    > There is one comment that these functions are used before PCI scanning
    > is done but there are used the same function as are in driver/pci/access.c.
    > Is there any "secret" reason to do it in this way?

    Well, first of all, those aren't ppc32 only anymore, they are in
    pci-common.c now. Then, if you look at them you'll notice that
    they are just a wrapper on top of pci_bus_* which uses a fake
    pci_bus structure. IE. They are meant to be used in very early
    arch fixup code at a time when we may not even have the struct
    pci_bus at hand. Their use is pretty rare though, maybe we -could-
    get rid of them at some stage by moving some of that fixup code.

    > Thanks for this early discuss. I would like to hear your opinion and
    > then I will choose solution how to add our pci support to mainline.


     \ /
      Last update: 2010-01-14 03:09    [W:0.026 / U:6.232 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site