Hi Simon,
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote:
> 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.
Why not we drop this coreboot pci driver (arch/x86/cpu/coreboot/pci.c)
and use the new one (drivers/pci/pci_x86.c) directly?
Regards,
Bin
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
