Re: [PATCH v4 0/8] asm-generic/io.h overhaul

[Richard Weinberger]

On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Thierry Reding
<thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: Thierry Reding <treding@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Hi,
>
> Here is the fourth version of a series that started out as an attempt to
> provide string versions of the read*() and write*() accessors to more
> architectures so that drivers can use them portably. The series has
> since evolved into a more general cleanup of asm-generic/io.h and the
> functions defined therein.
>
> Patch 1 is trivial and removes a redundant redefinition of PCI_IOBASE
> from the asm/io.h header on ARC. Patches 2 and 3 remove unnecessary
> volatile keywoards from some functions, which is a prerequisite to clean
> up some of the functions in subsequent patches.
>
> The xlate_dev_{kmem,mem}_ptr() functions are used to map memory when the
> /dev/mem device is accessed. Patches 4 and 5 use more consistent data
> types for these functions, which will get a "standard" prototype in the
> asm-generic/io.h header in a subsequent patch.
>
> Patch 6 is the bulk of this series. It implements the string variants of
> the read*() and write*() accessors and cleans up various other parts of
> the asm-generic/io.h header file. Macros are converted to static inline
> functions for better type checking. Overriding generic implementations
> in architectures is handled more consistently.
>
> Patches 7 and 8, finally, make use of the asm-generic/io.h header on the
> 32-bit and 64-bit ARM architectures.
>
> This is compile- and runtime-tested on 32-bit and 64-bit ARM and compile
> tested on IA64, Microblaze, s390, SPARC, x86 and Xtensa. For ARC,
> Blackfin, Metag, OpenRISC, Score and Unicore32 which also use
> asm-generic/io.h I couldn't find or build a cross-compiler that would
> run on my system. But by code inspection they shouldn't break with this
> patch.
>
> To ensure bisectability I built multi_v7_defconfig on 32-bit ARM and the
> defconfig for 64-bit ARM, IA64, Microblaze, s390, SPARC, x86 and Xtensa
> after each commit and verified that the series does not introduce any
> build errors or warnings.
>
> Provided there are no objections to the patches there's still the matter
> of how to merge them. Patch 6 depends on patches 1-5 to avoid warnings
> and/or errors during the build. Patches 7 and 8 depend on patch 6. In my
> opinion it doesn't make much sense to split them up, so I guess we'll
> need a volunteer to take them all into one tree. Ideally that tree would
> feed into linux-next so that we can get as much build and test-coverage
> as possible during the 3.17 release cycle so that these patches can go
> into 3.18.
>
> Arnd, I'm opportunistically sending this To: you in the hopes that you
> can take it into your asm-generic tree which seems like the best fit for
> this.

Do you have a git tree for that?
Would be nice for testing UML, it depends also on generic io.

-- 
Thanks,
//richard
--
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/