Hi Simon,
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote:
> 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.
>
Sorry I don't get it. I mean moving the implementation of
pci_x86_read_config() and pci_x86_write_config() to
drivers/pci/pci_x86.c. Do you have some concern about this?
[snip]
Regards,
Bin
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
