Re: [PATCH v7 1/6] pci: Introduce pci_register_io_range() helper function.
From: Bjorn Helgaas
Date: Mon Apr 07 2014 - 13:59:37 EST
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 5:36 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I think migrating other architectures to use the same code should be
> a separate effort from adding a generic implementation that can be
> used by arm64. It's probably a good idea to have patches to convert
> arm32 and/or microblaze.
Let me reiterate that I am 100% in favor of replacing arch-specific
code with more generic implementations.
However, I am not 100% in favor of doing it as separate efforts
(although maybe I could be convinced). The reasons I hesitate are
that (1) if only one architecture uses a new "generic" implementation,
we really don't know whether it is generic enough, (2) until I see the
patches to convert other architectures, I have to assume that I'm the
one who will write them, and (3) as soon as we add the code to
drivers/pci, it becomes partly my headache to maintain it, even if
only one arch benefits from it.
Please don't think I'm questioning anyone's intent or good will. It's
just that I understand the business pressures, and I know how hard it
can be to justify this sort of work to one's management, especially
after the immediate problem has been solved.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/