On Jun 2, 2014, at 10:09 AM, Grant Likely [off-list ref] wrote:

On Sat, 31 May 2014 20:41:04 +0200, Arnd Bergmann [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Saturday 31 May 2014 01:36:40 Liviu Dudau wrote:

quoted

We would like to be able to describe PCIe ECAM resources as
IORESOURCE_MEM blocks while distinguish them from standard
memory resources. Add an IORESOURCE_BIT entry for this case.

Signed-off-by: Liviu Dudau <Liviu.Dudau@arm.com>

I still don't see any value in this at all. What is the advantage
of doing this opposed to just having a standardized 'reg' property
for a particular compatible string?

I'm inclined to agree. It doesn't seem appropriate to put config space
in ranges, and the host controller binding is responsible for
identifying how config space is memory mapped.

g.

I don?t agree when it comes to ECAM, but we can drop this for now until someone really does that.

However, what do we do with the 2 cases that exist in upstream that are using ranges for cfg space?

- k

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