Hi Bin,
On 7 June 2015 at 20:15, Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
> On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at 10:50 PM, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote:
>> This driver should use the x86 PCI configuration functions. Also adjust its
>> compatible string to something generic (i.e. without a vendor name).
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org>
>> ---
>>
>> drivers/pci/pci_x86.c | 5 ++++-
>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/pci_x86.c b/drivers/pci/pci_x86.c
>> index 901bdca..9f842c3 100644
>> --- a/drivers/pci/pci_x86.c
>> +++ b/drivers/pci/pci_x86.c
>> @@ -7,12 +7,15 @@
>> #include <common.h>
>> #include <dm.h>
>> #include <pci.h>
>> +#include <asm/pci.h>
>>
>> static const struct dm_pci_ops x86_pci_ops = {
>
> To keep the consistent naming to match the driver name, can we rename
> this to pci_x86_ops?
OK
>
>> + .read_config = pci_x86_read_config,
>> + .write_config = pci_x86_write_config,
>
> Can we move pci_x86_read_config() and pci_x86_write_config() from
> arch/x86/cpu/pci.c to this file to make it a complete driver file?
> Also create a new header file pci_x86.h to declare these two so that
> it can be used by ivybridge.
I can certainly drop the ivybridge duplication. But I don't think it
is right to call directly into a driver in drivers/...
We should use driver model for this if we want to do it properly. I
would like to continue the work to move x86 fully to driver model.
In the meantime I think that directly called functions should be in arch/x86.
>
>> };
>>
>> static const struct udevice_id x86_pci_ids[] = {
>
> Can we rename this to pci_x86_ids?
OK
>
>> - { .compatible = "x86,pci" },
>> + { .compatible = "pci-x86" },
>> { }
>> };
>>
>> --
>
Regards,
Simon
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
