lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Dec]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC 01/32] Kconfig: introduce and depend on LEGACY_PCI
Em Tue, 28 Dec 2021 09:21:23 +0100
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> escreveu:

> On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 05:42:46PM +0100, Niklas Schnelle wrote:
> > --- a/drivers/pci/Kconfig
> > +++ b/drivers/pci/Kconfig
> > @@ -23,6 +23,17 @@ menuconfig PCI
> >
> > if PCI
> >
> > +config LEGACY_PCI
> > + bool "Enable support for legacy PCI devices"
> > + depends on HAVE_PCI
> > + help
> > + This option enables support for legacy PCI devices. This includes
> > + PCI devices attached directly or via a bridge on a PCI Express bus.
> > + It also includes compatibility features on PCI Express devices which
> > + make use of legacy I/O spaces.

This Kconfig doesn't seem what it is needed there, as this should be an
arch-dependent feature, and not something that the poor user should be
aware if a given architecture supports it or not. Also, the above will keep
causing warnings or errors with randconfigs.

Also, the "depends on HAVE_CPI" is bogus, as PCI already depends on
HAVE_PCI:

menuconfig PCI
bool "PCI support"
depends on HAVE_PCI
help
This option enables support for the PCI local bus, including
support for PCI-X and the foundations for PCI Express support.
Say 'Y' here unless you know what you are doing.

So, instead, I would expect that a new HAVE_xxx option would be
added at arch/*/Kconfig, like:

config X86
...
select HAVE_PCI_DIRECT_IO

It would also make sense to document it at Documentation/features/.

>
> All you really care about is the "legacy" I/O spaces here, this isn't
> tied to PCI specifically at all, right?
>
> So why not just have a OLD_STYLE_IO config option or something like
> that, to show that it's the i/o functions we care about here, not PCI at
> all?
>
> And maybe not call it "old" or "legacy" as time constantly goes forward,
> just describe it as it is, "DIRECT_IO"?

Agreed. HAVE_PCI_DIRECT_IO (or something similar) seems a more appropriate
name for it.

Thanks,
Mauro

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-12-28 10:16    [W:0.093 / U:58.980 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site