On Fri, May 09, 2025 at 07:53:31AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > Can you describe here why you want to support both "Io" and "PortIo" > cases separately? I don't think we need to micro-optimize for > legacy ISA devices any more, so I'd hope the "Io" path would be > sufficient to cover the common outliers (ata, uart, vga, ipmi, ne2000) > that need the iomap indirection and also the legacy devices that only > need port I/O (floppy, x86 platform devices, ...). Yeah, we probably don`t need the `PortIo` type and can rely on `Io` for port io. I`ll remove it for the v2. Best regards Andrew Ballance
