From: Grant Grundler <grundler@cup.hp.com>
To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org,
"David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: IO issues vs. multiple busses
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 10:05:17 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200103031805.KAA01024@milano.cup.hp.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 03 Mar 2001 03:45:22 PST." <19350125201706.1788@mailhost.mipsys.com>
Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
...
> The reason why I'm getting this problem on the public place (again ?)
> is that we are now faced with people who want to put video cards in both
> AGP & PCI busses, those cards requiring accesses to some legacy VGA IOs
> on each of their busses.
I don't see any way of getting around virtualizing the IO port space.
(by that I mean encoding more info in the upper IO port address bits)
...
> Right. That's my opinion too. But it's difficult to make everybody agree
> on it ;) Even the simple mechanism Paul Mackerras did so that IOs to
> non-existent devices don't kill the kernel (very small overhead) caused
> some barking ;)
Well, make it a CONFIG_XXX option for your arch and the people who
insist on doing complicated things will have to live with complicated
solutions. I don't have a better idea.
> It's my understanding that you use high
> bits of the IO address to store the HBA number and then use that to call
> the proper access functions.
Correct. For some reason, I thought alpha (or sparc? hose number?) did this
as well.
> That would solve the PCI IO problem (PCI cards
> requiring IOs to BAR-mapped regions), but I don't see how it can fix the
> problem of a card accessing legacy VGA addresses, except if you hand-fixed
> the video drivers to fill those high bits before doing IOs.
That's right. That happens after the bus walk but before drivers see
the device in pci_fixup_bus().
> If I understand things correctly, that mean that each card, instead of
> accessing the legacy VGA port 0xpp, would instead access 0x00bb00pp
> (or whatever mangling you use to stuff the HBA number).
right.
> The question is then to decide is all ISA busses are on a matching PCI bus,
> in which case a simple unsigned pci_get_bus_io_base(int bus_no) -like functio
> n
> would be enough, or if we want a scheme that supports other ISA-like busses ?
I don't know enough about your arch to answer that.
> We could eventually decide to support only PCI, and additionally declare a
> fake PCI bus for an ISA bus not matched to a PCI bus, whose config ops would
> return no device in any slot.
> Do we agree on this ?
In theory yes. But davem already wrote:
| There is no 'fake' ISA bus number you need. There is a 'real' one,
| the one on which the PCI-->ISA bridge lives, why not use that one
| :-)
> Well, from the driver point of view, I think it _do_ exist. Basically, the
> driver will do inb/outb & friends. Whatever those function do in reality is
> arch-dependant.
Right. I meant the underlying implementation of inb/outb.
> But we agree on the fact that in order for those functions to know on which
> bus to tap, an additional information must be "cooked" inside the IO address
> passed to them.
yes.
> Additionally, the same problem is true for ISA memory, when it exist
> obviously.
Really? I expected ISA memory to look like reguler uncacheable memory
and the drivers would simply dereference the address. But I'm not an
expert on how ISA busses work...
> With those two simple functions, we could at least
[ deleted list ]
I have to defer to someone like Alan Cox or Davem or someone who has
a clue about VGA. I don't. Like sparc, parisc doesn't support VGA.
Alan is the only person I know of who's even considered plugging a VGA
card into a parisc box.
> The only thing that's annoying me in the fact that we keep tied to PCI
> is that in various embedded system, there is one (or more) ISA-like
> bus hanging around with legacy devices and no PCI, and abstracting a
In short, where the HW doesn't route transactions down the right bus
adapter, the SW has too.
> bit the notion of IO bus would have helped. But it seem that now, more
> embedded systems are also going toward in-CPU IOs anyway, along with
> eventually a PCI bus for the most expensive ones, so it may finally
> not be an issue in the long term.
It sounds like the HW will do (some of?) the routing.
grant
Grant Grundler
parisc-linux {PCI|IOMMU|SMP} hacker
+1.408.447.7253
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-03-03 18:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <19350125063652.28310@mailhost.mipsys.com>
2001-03-02 18:43 ` Grant Grundler
2001-03-03 2:45 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2001-03-03 15:07 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2001-03-04 19:55 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2001-03-03 18:05 ` Grant Grundler [this message]
2001-03-04 20:04 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200103031805.KAA01024@milano.cup.hp.com \
--to=grundler@cup.hp.com \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=davem@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®