Re: [PATCH 02/20] PCI: fix pci_remap_iospace() remap attribute

From	Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [PATCH 02/20] PCI: fix pci_remap_iospace() remap attribute
Date	2017-03-20 17:20 +0100
Message-ID	<tn8ch-7du-3@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	(1 earlier) <tfvfI-7o7-21@gated-at.bofh.it> <tlLrs-4pD-23@gated-at.bofh.it> <tlOpk-6qV-23@gated-at.bofh.it> <tlZkK-6pR-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <tm2Vk-Og-15@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 05:26:18PM +0100, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 10:43:39AM +0000, Liviu Dudau wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 01:33:21AM +0100, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > > a) should we then use a Fixes tag for this patch ?
> > 
> > I'm not aware of issues being reported, but Lorenzo might have more info on this.
> 
> Lorenzo ? If not what exactly made you discover this ? If it is a fix, and only 
> ARM64 is implicated, seems like a worthy change to consider for stable for the
> sake of stable ARM64 kernels. But, that would leave the PCI config space without
> a simple 1 liner fix too -- so maybe its not worth it. Distributions wanting
> to support ARM64 however would like to carry these changes, so some annotations
> such as Fixes should help.

It started with this thread:

http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2017-January/477353.html

this series is not fixing any current issue I am aware of (but I am not
keen on leaving code as-is either) hence adding a Fixes: tag is problematic.

I would leave stable kernels alone for the time being.

Lorenzo

> > > b) it does not seem clear what the semantics for pgprot_device() or even
> > >    pgprot_noncached(). Can you add some ?
> > > 
> > > 8b921acfeffdb ("PCI: Add pci_remap_iospace() to map bus I/O resources")
> > > 
> > > Also this patch claims archs can override this call alone, as its __weak.
> > > So is the right thing to do to change pci_remap_iospace() to pgprot_noncached()
> > > or is it for archs to add their own pci_remap_iospace()? If so why ? Without
> > > proper semantics defined for these helpers this is all fuzzy.
> > 
> > That was the initial intention, to let arches / platforms overwrite the whole
> > pci_remap_iospace(). I guess the reality is that no one needs to overwrite it except
> > for the AArch64 quirk, so probably easier to remove the __weak and fix the attributes for arm64.
> 
> Sounds much more reasonable to me.
> 
>   Luis

Thread

Re: [PATCH 02/20] PCI: fix pci_remap_iospace() remap attribute Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org> - 2017-03-16 22:50 +0100
  Re: [PATCH 02/20] PCI: fix pci_remap_iospace() remap attribute "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org> - 2017-03-17 02:00 +0100
    Re: [PATCH 02/20] PCI: fix pci_remap_iospace() remap attribute Liviu Dudau <liviu@dudau.co.uk> - 2017-03-17 13:40 +0100
      Re: [PATCH 02/20] PCI: fix pci_remap_iospace() remap attribute "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org> - 2017-03-17 17:30 +0100
        Re: [PATCH 02/20] PCI: fix pci_remap_iospace() remap attribute Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com> - 2017-03-20 17:20 +0100
    Re: [PATCH 02/20] PCI: fix pci_remap_iospace() remap attribute Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org> - 2017-03-20 17:10 +0100
      Re: [PATCH 02/20] PCI: fix pci_remap_iospace() remap attribute Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com> - 2017-03-20 17:40 +0100
        Re: [PATCH 02/20] PCI: fix pci_remap_iospace() remap attribute Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org> - 2017-03-20 17:40 +0100

csiph-web