lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Apr]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v5 06/12] PCI: designware-ep: Make dw_pcie_ep_set_bar() handle 64-bit BARs properly
On Mon, Apr 02, 2018 at 09:37:03PM +0200, 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
> clearer than having 1 long if-statement.
>
> If Kishon agrees with me, then the review comment in this mail
> seems to be the only review comment.
> And in that case, perhaps Lorenzo wouldn't mind fixing this up.
> Or perhaps Lorenzo prefers if I reroll the whole patch series?

I updated it myself in my pci/endpoint branch, please have a look, I
can't guarantee we can merge this for this cycle though, I will ask
Bjorn; apologies I could not be online for a while.

Lorenzo

> Kind regards,
> Niklas

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-04-03 14:54    [W:0.052 / U:2.940 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site