linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] Register PCI host bridge resource earlier

To: Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Register PCI host bridge resource earlier
From: Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov@ru.mvista.com>
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2007 20:58:42 +0400
Cc: linux-mips@linux-mips.org
In-reply-to: <20070408161027.GA8265@alpha.franken.de>
Organization: MontaVista Software Inc.
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
References: <20070408112844.GA7553@alpha.franken.de> <4618DDF0.1020604@ru.mvista.com> <20070408131228.GA7819@alpha.franken.de> <4618ED95.6040304@ru.mvista.com> <20070408135244.GA8016@alpha.franken.de> <4619008D.1030803@ru.mvista.com> <20070408161027.GA8265@alpha.franken.de>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040803
Hello.

Thomas Bogendoerfer wrote:

I'm just not seeing how using insert_resource() vs request_resource() for i8259 ports can be relevant here.

request_resource will fail, because the range is already taken by
sni_io_resource, while insert_region inserts the resource into sni_io_resource.

No, it shouldn't according to what I'm seeing in the code. Perhaps I'm missing something and need to actually try executing alike code a see...

The problem is that init_i8259 doesn't have the right
resource for doing the request_resource, if ioport_resource starting from
0x0000 is already taken by a PCI host bridge.

I'm not at all sure that giving out I/O addresses from 0 to PCI is a great idea -- is it indeed necessary?

I could probably write a
patch, which adds a parameter to init_i8259 for the resource, where the
request_resource is correct. No idea, whether this is worth the efford.

Opions ?

   Did you mean options, opinions, or something else? :-)

Thomas.

WBR, Sergei

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>