| Message ID | d7320150373a0a04ba44b12c5c56d92370853316.1464029828.git.vilhelm.gray@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
Hi! > With the introduction of the ISA_BUS_API Kconfig option, ISA-style > drivers may be built for X86_64 architectures. This patch changes the > ISA Kconfig option dependency of the PC/104 drivers to ISA_BUS_API, thus > allowing them to build for X86_64 as they are expected to. > > Cc: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> > Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> > Signed-off-by: William Breathitt Gray <vilhelm.gray@gmail.com> > --- > drivers/gpio/Kconfig | 8 ++++---- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpio/Kconfig b/drivers/gpio/Kconfig > index 48da857..dc6da77 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpio/Kconfig > +++ b/drivers/gpio/Kconfig > @@ -530,7 +530,7 @@ menu "Port-mapped I/O GPIO drivers" > > config GPIO_104_DIO_48E > tristate "ACCES 104-DIO-48E GPIO support" > - depends on ISA > + depends on ISA_BUS_API > select GPIOLIB_IRQCHIP > help > Enables GPIO support for the ACCES 104-DIO-48E series Should we do "depends on PC104" here, because that is what it really means, and have PC104 enabled when ISA_BUS_API is enabled or something like that?
On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 10:57:03PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: >Hi! > >> With the introduction of the ISA_BUS_API Kconfig option, ISA-style >> drivers may be built for X86_64 architectures. This patch changes the >> ISA Kconfig option dependency of the PC/104 drivers to ISA_BUS_API, thus >> allowing them to build for X86_64 as they are expected to. >> >> Cc: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> >> Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> >> Signed-off-by: William Breathitt Gray <vilhelm.gray@gmail.com> >> --- >> drivers/gpio/Kconfig | 8 ++++---- >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/Kconfig b/drivers/gpio/Kconfig >> index 48da857..dc6da77 100644 >> --- a/drivers/gpio/Kconfig >> +++ b/drivers/gpio/Kconfig >> @@ -530,7 +530,7 @@ menu "Port-mapped I/O GPIO drivers" >> >> config GPIO_104_DIO_48E >> tristate "ACCES 104-DIO-48E GPIO support" >> - depends on ISA >> + depends on ISA_BUS_API >> select GPIOLIB_IRQCHIP >> help >> Enables GPIO support for the ACCES 104-DIO-48E series > >Should we do "depends on PC104" here, because that is what it really >means, and have PC104 enabled when ISA_BUS_API is enabled or something >like that? Since the functionality remains the same, I'm a bit indifferent to that change; as long as the driver builds for systems in which it's intended to be used, I'm satisfied. Differentiating between PC/104 and ISA may be a pointless endeavor though since both buses appear the same to software. But if it is better to differentiate between devices as such, then I see little harm in adding a PC104 Kconfig option which follows the ISA_BUS_API Kconfig option. William Breathitt Gray -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Fri 2016-06-03 17:12:44, William Breathitt Gray wrote: > On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 10:57:03PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > >Hi! > > > >> With the introduction of the ISA_BUS_API Kconfig option, ISA-style > >> drivers may be built for X86_64 architectures. This patch changes the > >> ISA Kconfig option dependency of the PC/104 drivers to ISA_BUS_API, thus > >> allowing them to build for X86_64 as they are expected to. > >> > >> Cc: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> > >> Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> > >> Signed-off-by: William Breathitt Gray <vilhelm.gray@gmail.com> > >> --- > >> drivers/gpio/Kconfig | 8 ++++---- > >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/Kconfig b/drivers/gpio/Kconfig > >> index 48da857..dc6da77 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/gpio/Kconfig > >> +++ b/drivers/gpio/Kconfig > >> @@ -530,7 +530,7 @@ menu "Port-mapped I/O GPIO drivers" > >> > >> config GPIO_104_DIO_48E > >> tristate "ACCES 104-DIO-48E GPIO support" > >> - depends on ISA > >> + depends on ISA_BUS_API > >> select GPIOLIB_IRQCHIP > >> help > >> Enables GPIO support for the ACCES 104-DIO-48E series > > > >Should we do "depends on PC104" here, because that is what it really > >means, and have PC104 enabled when ISA_BUS_API is enabled or something > >like that? > > Since the functionality remains the same, I'm a bit indifferent to that > change; as long as the driver builds for systems in which it's intended > to be used, I'm satisfied. > > Differentiating between PC/104 and ISA may be a pointless endeavor > though since both buses appear the same to software. But if it is better > to differentiate between devices as such, then I see little harm in > adding a PC104 Kconfig option which follows the ISA_BUS_API Kconfig > option. Well, they are same to the software, but not at the hardware. If I have a development board that has PC104 (but not isa), I'd like to see prompts for PC104 extensions, not for isa. If PC105 comes out, still ISA compatible, I will want to see prompts for PC104 boards or PC105 boards, but not neccessarily both... Best regards, Pavel
On Sat, Jun 04, 2016 at 09:14:08AM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: >On Fri 2016-06-03 17:12:44, William Breathitt Gray wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 10:57:03PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: >> >Should we do "depends on PC104" here, because that is what it really >> >means, and have PC104 enabled when ISA_BUS_API is enabled or something >> >like that? >> >> Since the functionality remains the same, I'm a bit indifferent to that >> change; as long as the driver builds for systems in which it's intended >> to be used, I'm satisfied. >> >> Differentiating between PC/104 and ISA may be a pointless endeavor >> though since both buses appear the same to software. But if it is better >> to differentiate between devices as such, then I see little harm in >> adding a PC104 Kconfig option which follows the ISA_BUS_API Kconfig >> option. > >Well, they are same to the software, but not at the hardware. If I >have a development board that has PC104 (but not isa), I'd like to see >prompts for PC104 extensions, not for isa. If PC105 comes out, still >ISA compatible, I will want to see prompts for PC104 boards or PC105 >boards, but not neccessarily both... I think I see the merit of a prompt for PC104 devices. I've encountered a use case recently which I'm curious about in this scenario. Given the compatibility with ISA, manufacturers may occasionally develop variants of existing ISA devices by duplicating the firmware on a PC/104 form factor. I'm working on an IIO DAC driver for the Measurement Computing CIO-DAC family (CIO-DAC08, CIO-DAC16, and PC104-DAC06); while not a GPIO driver, I believe it can serve as a decent example. Interestingly, while the CIO-DAC08 and CIO-DAC16 are true ISA devices, the PC104-DAC06 is a PC/104 variant compatible with the others in the family. The IIO DAC driver works just as well with the PC104-DAC06, as it does with the true ISA devices in the family. What would the Kconfig depends line look in this scenario? I imagine simply "depends on PC104" would be inappropriate since there are a number of true ISA devices supported by the driver, but "depends on ISA_BUS_API || PC104" seems somewhat redundant when the PC104 Kconfig option implies ISA_BUS_API. This situation isn't that much of an issue overall, but I anticipate encountering it occassionally as I develop future PC/104 drivers. William Breathitt Gray -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Sat 2016-06-04 07:12:21, William Breathitt Gray wrote: > On Sat, Jun 04, 2016 at 09:14:08AM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > >On Fri 2016-06-03 17:12:44, William Breathitt Gray wrote: > >> On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 10:57:03PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > >> >Should we do "depends on PC104" here, because that is what it really > >> >means, and have PC104 enabled when ISA_BUS_API is enabled or something > >> >like that? > >> > >> Since the functionality remains the same, I'm a bit indifferent to that > >> change; as long as the driver builds for systems in which it's intended > >> to be used, I'm satisfied. > >> > >> Differentiating between PC/104 and ISA may be a pointless endeavor > >> though since both buses appear the same to software. But if it is better > >> to differentiate between devices as such, then I see little harm in > >> adding a PC104 Kconfig option which follows the ISA_BUS_API Kconfig > >> option. > > > >Well, they are same to the software, but not at the hardware. If I > >have a development board that has PC104 (but not isa), I'd like to see > >prompts for PC104 extensions, not for isa. If PC105 comes out, still > >ISA compatible, I will want to see prompts for PC104 boards or PC105 > >boards, but not neccessarily both... > > I think I see the merit of a prompt for PC104 devices. I've encountered > a use case recently which I'm curious about in this scenario. Given the > compatibility with ISA, manufacturers may occasionally develop variants > of existing ISA devices by duplicating the firmware on a PC/104 form > factor. > > I'm working on an IIO DAC driver for the Measurement Computing CIO-DAC > family (CIO-DAC08, CIO-DAC16, and PC104-DAC06); while not a GPIO driver, > I believe it can serve as a decent example. Interestingly, while the > CIO-DAC08 and CIO-DAC16 are true ISA devices, the PC104-DAC06 is a > PC/104 variant compatible with the others in the family. The IIO DAC > driver works just as well with the PC104-DAC06, as it does with the true > ISA devices in the family. > > What would the Kconfig depends line look in this scenario? I imagine > simply "depends on PC104" would be inappropriate since there are a > number of true ISA devices supported by the driver, but "depends on > ISA_BUS_API || PC104" seems somewhat redundant when the PC104 Kconfig > option implies ISA_BUS_API. This situation isn't that much of an issue > overall, but I anticipate encountering it occassionally as I develop > future PC/104 drivers. ISA_BUS_API || PC104 sounds fine to me. But it seems probable to me that such devices will be connectable by PC104 and something else that is logically ISA but physically something else...? So in such case it would be logical to have driver depend on PC104 || SOMETHING_ELSE. Of course, if some hardware is so common it is on many such buses, we can use ISA_BUS_API... Best regards, Pavel
On Sun, Jun 05, 2016 at 09:24:24PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: >On Sat 2016-06-04 07:12:21, William Breathitt Gray wrote: >> I think I see the merit of a prompt for PC104 devices. I've encountered >> a use case recently which I'm curious about in this scenario. Given the >> compatibility with ISA, manufacturers may occasionally develop variants >> of existing ISA devices by duplicating the firmware on a PC/104 form >> factor. >> >> I'm working on an IIO DAC driver for the Measurement Computing CIO-DAC >> family (CIO-DAC08, CIO-DAC16, and PC104-DAC06); while not a GPIO driver, >> I believe it can serve as a decent example. Interestingly, while the >> CIO-DAC08 and CIO-DAC16 are true ISA devices, the PC104-DAC06 is a >> PC/104 variant compatible with the others in the family. The IIO DAC >> driver works just as well with the PC104-DAC06, as it does with the true >> ISA devices in the family. >> >> What would the Kconfig depends line look in this scenario? I imagine >> simply "depends on PC104" would be inappropriate since there are a >> number of true ISA devices supported by the driver, but "depends on >> ISA_BUS_API || PC104" seems somewhat redundant when the PC104 Kconfig >> option implies ISA_BUS_API. This situation isn't that much of an issue >> overall, but I anticipate encountering it occassionally as I develop >> future PC/104 drivers. > >ISA_BUS_API || PC104 sounds fine to me. But it seems probable to me >that such devices will be connectable by PC104 and something else that >is logically ISA but physically something else...? > >So in such case it would be logical to have driver depend on PC104 || >SOMETHING_ELSE. Of course, if some hardware is so common it is on many >such buses, we can use ISA_BUS_API... It does sound like it would be good to have a filter for drivers which support only PC/104 device: a user would be able to conveniently filter out PC/104 drivers, since most consumer systems do not feature a PC/104 bus even if they do possess an ISA bus. For drivers which support both ISA and PC/104 devices, we could simply do as you suggest; but it's likely that we will see fewer and fewer of these true ISA devices in the future, which leaves the PC104 Kconfig option quite useful to implement. William Breathitt Gray -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/drivers/gpio/Kconfig b/drivers/gpio/Kconfig index 48da857..dc6da77 100644 --- a/drivers/gpio/Kconfig +++ b/drivers/gpio/Kconfig @@ -530,7 +530,7 @@ menu "Port-mapped I/O GPIO drivers" config GPIO_104_DIO_48E tristate "ACCES 104-DIO-48E GPIO support" - depends on ISA + depends on ISA_BUS_API select GPIOLIB_IRQCHIP help Enables GPIO support for the ACCES 104-DIO-48E series (104-DIO-48E, @@ -540,7 +540,7 @@ config GPIO_104_DIO_48E config GPIO_104_IDIO_16 tristate "ACCES 104-IDIO-16 GPIO support" - depends on ISA + depends on ISA_BUS_API select GPIOLIB_IRQCHIP help Enables GPIO support for the ACCES 104-IDIO-16 family (104-IDIO-16, @@ -551,7 +551,7 @@ config GPIO_104_IDIO_16 config GPIO_104_IDI_48 tristate "ACCES 104-IDI-48 GPIO support" - depends on ISA + depends on ISA_BUS_API select GPIOLIB_IRQCHIP help Enables GPIO support for the ACCES 104-IDI-48 family (104-IDI-48A, @@ -627,7 +627,7 @@ config GPIO_TS5500 config GPIO_WS16C48 tristate "WinSystems WS16C48 GPIO support" - depends on ISA + depends on ISA_BUS_API select GPIOLIB_IRQCHIP help Enables GPIO support for the WinSystems WS16C48. The base port
With the introduction of the ISA_BUS_API Kconfig option, ISA-style drivers may be built for X86_64 architectures. This patch changes the ISA Kconfig option dependency of the PC/104 drivers to ISA_BUS_API, thus allowing them to build for X86_64 as they are expected to. Cc: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> Signed-off-by: William Breathitt Gray <vilhelm.gray@gmail.com> --- drivers/gpio/Kconfig | 8 ++++---- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)