From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754853AbaCNRjA (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Mar 2014 13:39:00 -0400 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.131]:59379 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754729AbaCNRi5 (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Mar 2014 13:38:57 -0400 From: Arnd Bergmann To: Catalin Marinas Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 3/3] arm64: Add architecture support for PCI Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 18:38:08 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.2 (Linux/3.8.0-22-generic; KDE/4.3.2; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Liviu Dudau , "linux-pci" , Bjorn Helgaas , Will Deacon , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , "linaro-kernel" , LKML , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , LAKML , Tanmay Inamdar , Grant Likely References: <1394811258-1500-1-git-send-email-Liviu.Dudau@arm.com> <1394811258-1500-4-git-send-email-Liviu.Dudau@arm.com> <20140314171457.GK18126@arm.com> In-Reply-To: <20140314171457.GK18126@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201403141838.08900.arnd@arndb.de> X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:6lyxJDAQQR6megD4pKUSMVk29pBFQAJcNuaer8Y3qkf ZcJiFqMYzqp4J4lsypvseNJ/y9yHhw64lMP7mVHYXwuSmVRGM5 RWYKbpVWYfeVid/8o535sRmcpEQ1BOeynG4M7qKD5joTEGntbv P85AI8/QgaTf8EcFeRPqwEZ7RuODLo2E3kWRtqp4OQeEjATFsm imTtRt43YhRtUpqykoyInD2aHKqOJFlluw3FSqsVA2YHASqCg9 48js2iy1zFSE+9GnzMwiohhDN0rDstPpt+J6jnC1iu51RXSP04 4H0vFtrkFe1wnq+rhMIJ395yNcn8SAVAqQa5eXbnjHZFyspP25 JbbwOgKPRRH4CFQ5NFCYaoVo1JEKgrt8E3Spp0jPd Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Friday 14 March 2014, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 03:34:18PM +0000, Liviu Dudau wrote: > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/pci.c > [...] > > +int pci_register_io_range(phys_addr_t address, resource_size_t size) > [...] > > +unsigned long pci_address_to_pio(phys_addr_t address) > [...] > > +void pcibios_fixup_bus(struct pci_bus *bus) > [ actually most of this file ] > > Maybe it was raised before already but can we have __weak generic > definitions of these functions? They don't seem to be arm64 specific in > any way. > I would definitely prefer that. Arnd