lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Apr]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v5 06/12] PCI: designware-ep: Make dw_pcie_ep_set_bar() handle 64-bit BARs properly
From
Date


On Tuesday 03 April 2018 01:07 AM, Niklas Cassel wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 03:17:11PM +0530, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wednesday 28 March 2018 05:20 PM, Niklas Cassel wrote:
>>> Since a 64-bit BAR consists of a BAR pair, we need to write to both
>>> BARs in the BAR pair to setup the BAR properly.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Niklas Cassel <niklas.cassel@axis.com>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-designware-ep.c | 11 +++++++++--
>>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-designware-ep.c b/drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-designware-ep.c
>>> index 5a0bb53c795c..571b90f88d84 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-designware-ep.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-designware-ep.c
>>> @@ -138,8 +138,15 @@ static int dw_pcie_ep_set_bar(struct pci_epc *epc, u8 func_no,
>>> return ret;
>>>
>>> dw_pcie_dbi_ro_wr_en(pci);
>>> - dw_pcie_writel_dbi2(pci, reg, size - 1);
>>> - dw_pcie_writel_dbi(pci, reg, flags);
>>> + if (flags & PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64) {
>>> + dw_pcie_writel_dbi2(pci, reg, lower_32_bits(size - 1));
>>> + dw_pcie_writel_dbi(pci, reg, flags);
>>> + dw_pcie_writel_dbi2(pci, reg + 4, upper_32_bits(size - 1));
>>> + dw_pcie_writel_dbi(pci, reg + 4, 0);
>>> + } else {
>>> + dw_pcie_writel_dbi2(pci, reg, size - 1);
>>> + dw_pcie_writel_dbi(pci, reg, flags);
>>> + }
>>
>>
>> I think this should work too?
>> dw_pcie_writel_dbi2(pci, reg, lower_32_bits(size - 1));
>> dw_pcie_writel_dbi(pci, reg, flags);
>>
>> if (flags & PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64) {
>> dw_pcie_writel_dbi2(pci, reg + 4, upper_32_bits(size - 1));
>> dw_pcie_writel_dbi(pci, reg + 4, 0);
>> }
>>
>
> Hello Kishon,
>
> I agree, your suggestion is more neat.
>
>
> Kishon, please tell me if you insist that the long if-statement
> in pci_epc_set_bar() should be split, since there are 5 different
> conditions. Because imho, having 5 succeeding if-statements isn't

I'm okay as it is as well if Lorenzo/Bjorn is also fine with it.

Thanks
Kishon

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-04-03 07:41    [W:2.519 / U:0.212 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site