On Monday 10 March 2014 14:44:14 Liviu Dudau wrote:

I will try to improve the error handling in the next patchset version.
However I am still confused about the earlier discussion on
pci_register_io_range(). Your suggestion initially was to return an
error in the default weak implementation, but in your last email you
are talking about returning 'port'.

You can do either one: 'port' should be positive or zero, while the
error would always be negative. We do the same thing in many interfaces
in the kernel.

My idea when I've introduced the
helper function was that it would return an error if it fails to
register the IO range and zero otherwise. I agree that we can treat
the default 'do nothing with the IO range' case as an error, with
the caveat that will force architectures that use this code to
provide their own implementation of pci_register_io_range() in order
to avoid failure, even for the cases where the architecture has a 1:1
mapping between IO and CPU addresses.

Which architectures are you thinking of? The only one I know that
does this is ia64, and we won't ever have to support this helper
on that architecture.

I did not ask to treat 'do nothing with the IO range' as an error,
what I meant is that we should treat 'architecture cannot translate
from I/O space to memory space but DT lists a translation anyway'
as an error. On x86, you should never see an entry for the I/O space
in "ranges", so we will not call this function unless there is a
bug in DT.

	Arnd