Hi Bin,
On 23 June 2015 at 21:46, Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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]
Yes it is still used by arch/x86/cpu/coreboot/pci.c - and as I say I
don't like the 'call directly into driver' idea. If we could remove
the coreboot case then it would be fine.
Regards,
Simon
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
