On May 29, 2014, at 3:44 PM, Rob Herring [off-list ref] wrote:

On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Kumar Gala [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

If we have a PCI config space specified in something like a ranges
property we should treat it as memory type resource.

Config space should not be in ranges[1]. We have some cases that are,
but we don't want new ones.

For the cases we have I agree, however an ECAM based cfg seems completely legit.

quoted

Signed-off-by: Kumar Gala <redacted>
---
drivers/of/address.c | 3 +++
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/of/address.c b/drivers/of/address.c
index cb4242a..4e7ee59 100644
--- a/drivers/of/address.c
+++ b/drivers/of/address.c

@@ -122,6 +122,9 @@ static unsigned int of_bus_pci_get_flags(const __be32 *addr)
       u32 w = be32_to_cpup(addr);

       switch((w >> 24) & 0x03) {
+       case 0x00: /* cfg space */
+               flags |= IORESOURCE_MEM;
+               break;

How would you then distinguish actual memory ranges?

One assumes you are still looking at pci_space as part of of_pci_range

Rob

[1] http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-pci/msg30585.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

-- 
Employee of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation