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 there. > 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. Cheers, Ben. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
