Re: __ioremap_at() in 2.4.0-test9-pre2

On Thu, Sep 21, 2000 at 10:08:37AM +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote:

Matt Porter writes:

quoted

Ick...agree here.  Of course, the serial driver could be changed to
do other than inb/outb's for other archs and be passed the memory
mapped address of the ports.

And the parallel port driver, and the floppy driver, and the
keyboard/mouse drivers, and the ...

I'm not trying to say it's easy... :)  It is a limited set of drivers
though.

quoted

This looks to be a good solution if we can't resolve to make the kernel
less legacy-oriented.  I changed the default K2 board memory map to

If we only supported powermacs, and not preps or chrps, then we
probably could make the kernel less "legacy-oriented". :-) :-)

quoted

do a similar thing by orienting the 2nd host bridge right after the
1st in the physical map.  The virt->phys mapping was then 1:1 and things
work as you describe above.  Obviously, this approach won't work when
you have separate bridge ASICs since you can't get the memory map
granularity that I had in the dual host bridge package.

So we set up the virtual -> physical mapping to suit ourselves.  Not a
problem.

Agreed.  I think you've convinced me that the virtual contortions of
I/O space is the best way to go in we have to live with in*/out*.

quoted

Well, on drivers like the de4x5 you switch to use the mem bar instead
of the I/O bar and then it's generic.  There are lots of drivers that
given the choice, chose to use I/O calls.  These can easily be fixed.

But what is wrong with using registers in I/O space and accessing them
with in*/out*?  I don't understand the aversion some people have shown
to using in*/out*.  They are the accessor functions for PCI I/O space,
that's all.  Whatever happens, we need accessor functions for PCI I/O
space.  We can call them something different or make them more
complicated but that would just create extra work for ourselves and
make it harder to port drivers between architectures.

We will need accessor functions, but the parameters of in*/out* are
limiting for other architectures.  That's been my point.  I'm trying
to be forward looking here so we don't do this all over again.

quoted

PCI I/O is memory mapped on everything but x86.  In most cases PCI

So???  What we have is a level of abstraction that hides (from driver
authors) exactly how PCI memory and I/O space are accessed.  We have
readb/writeb etc. for PCI memory space and inb/outb etc. for PCI I/O
space.  The fact that on PPC both are mapped into the processor's
address space and accessed using loads and stores is something that
drivers should not care in the slightest about.  And in fact these
spaces are not accessed this way on some other non-intel platforms;
e.g. sparc64 uses special ldasi/stasi instructions.

Ok.

quoted

devices provide bars that map the same set of registers into both
I/O space and mem space.  That leaves only the true legacy devices
which have no memory bars to be concerned with.  It's a smaller
set of drivers that need different low level access methods than
you're making it out to be.

The fact remains that a lot of drivers will continue to use inb/outb
etc., since they are developed primarily on the intel platform.  It
makes sense for us to have an inb/outb that works similarly to intel,
so that we can use as many drivers as possible with as little pain as
possible.

I'm worn out.  I've been convinced that we'll have to live with it.

--
Matt Porter
MontaVista Software, Inc.
mporter@mvista.com

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/