On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 07:52:24AM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 7:04 AM, Joerg Roedel <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 05:18:32PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> >> Previously we returned a new struct resource with only IORESOURCE_BUSY
> >> set (and possibly IORESOURCE_MUXED or IORESOURCE_EXCLUSIVE), but no
> >> MEM/IO/etc. bits set. The new resource should inherit the type of
> >> its parent.
> >
> > Should it? What about IORESOURCE_WINDOW for example? Any particular
> > reason for this change to the interface of the __request_region()
> > function?
>
> Yes, I should have explained the connection :) The next patch prints
> the resource returned from request_mem_region(). Without this
> __request_region() patch, that resource has no type, so %pR can't
> print it correctly.
>
> Good question about IORESOURCE_WINDOW. Maybe it should inherit only
> the IORESOURCE_TYPE_BITS part (IO/MEM/IRQ/DMA/BUS). But it seemed
> like it should also inherit PREFETCH, READONLY, CACHEABLE, etc. Maybe
> we should inherit everything but clear IORESOURCE_WINDOW? I'm open to
> suggestions here.
I am still not sure whether the inheritance is a good idea. How about
changing the define of request_mem_region to:
#define request_mem_region(start,n,name) __request_region(&iomem_resource,
(start), (n), (name), IORESOURCE_MEM)
?
Joerg
_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
