On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 10:24:36AM -0700, Grant Grundler wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 03:50:57PM +0000, Russell King wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I think it's the simplest solution to allowing a driver
> to indicate which resources it wants to use. It solves
> the problem of I/O Port resource allocation sufficiently
> well.
I have another question (brought up by someone working on a series of
ARM machines which make heavy use of MMIO.)
Why isn't pci_enable_device_bars() sufficient - why do we have to
have another interface to say "we don't want BARs XXX" ?
Let's say that we have a device driver which does this sequence (with,
of course, error checking):
pci_enable_device_bars(dev, 1<<1);
pci_request_regions(dev);
(a) should PCI remember that only BAR 1 has been requested to be enabled,
and as such shouldn't pci_request_regions() ignore BAR 0?
(b) should the PCI driver pass into pci_request_regions() (or even
pci_request_regions_bars()) a bitmask of the BARs it wants to have
requested, and similarly for pci_release_regions().
Basically, if BAR0 hasn't been enabled, has pci_request_regions() got
any business requesting it from the resource tree?
--
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 [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
