[lkml]   [2014]   [Nov]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC v2 1/2] drivers: pci: fix pci_mmap_fits() implementation for procfs mmap
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 07:23:49AM +0000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-11-10 at 16:04 -0700, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > But I'm not sure I have this right. If the procfs offset is either
> > the
> > CPU physical address or the BAR value, then pci_resource_to_user()
> > should be (depending on the arch) either a no-op or use
> > pci_resource_to_bus().
> >
> > But that's not how it's implemented. Maybe it *could* be? If
> > pci_resource_to_user() gives you something that's not a CPU physical
> > address and not a bus address, what *does* it give you, and why would
> > we
> > need this third kind of thing?
> >
> > FWIW, I think the discussion leading up to pci_resource_to_user() is
> > here:
> >
> Oh, man... I remember that was all a giant trainwreck and some stuff
> just couldn't be made completely right due to broken assumptions by
> the proc code and users of it... but I don't remember all the details.
> I think /proc users don't necessarily pass a BAR value but something
> they try to somewhat translates themselves via the "resources" file,
> which ends up working ... or not, depending on various factors such
> as 32 vs 64 bit etc...
> I wonder who still uses this interface....

+1, even though I do not think that leaving it as it is is a good idea,
hence I posted this series.

I tried to fix it while fixing the way ARM pcibios code handles
pci_mmap_page_range() (for both procfs and sysfs mappings).

I will do what Bjorn suggested, more comments from arches maintainers
are welcome.


 \ /
  Last update: 2014-11-12 12:01    [W:0.089 / U:12.412 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site