Gavin Shan <gwshan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> This introduces pnv_ioda_init_pe() to initialize the specified PE
> instance (phb->ioda.pe_array[x]). It's used by pnv_ioda_alloc_pe()
> and pnv_ioda_reserve_pe(). No logical changes introduced.
>
> Signed-off-by: Gavin Shan <gwshan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/pci-ioda.c | 14 ++++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/pci-ioda.c b/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/pci-ioda.c
> index ef93a01..488e0f8 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/pci-ioda.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/pci-ioda.c
> @@ -129,6 +129,14 @@ static inline bool pnv_pci_is_mem_pref_64(unsigned long flags)
> (IORESOURCE_MEM_64 | IORESOURCE_PREFETCH));
> }
>
> +static struct pnv_ioda_pe *pnv_ioda_init_pe(struct pnv_phb *phb, int pe_no)
> +{
> + phb->ioda.pe_array[pe_no].phb = phb;
> + phb->ioda.pe_array[pe_no].pe_number = pe_no;
> +
> + return &phb->ioda.pe_array[pe_no];
You have the function returning the newly initalized PE here...
> +}
> +
> static void pnv_ioda_reserve_pe(struct pnv_phb *phb, int pe_no)
> {
> if (!(pe_no >= 0 && pe_no < phb->ioda.total_pe_num)) {
> @@ -141,8 +149,7 @@ static void pnv_ioda_reserve_pe(struct pnv_phb *phb, int pe_no)
> pr_debug("%s: PE %d was reserved on PHB#%x\n",
> __func__, pe_no, phb->hose->global_number);
>
> - phb->ioda.pe_array[pe_no].phb = phb;
> - phb->ioda.pe_array[pe_no].pe_number = pe_no;
> + pnv_ioda_init_pe(phb, pe_no);
... but then you ignore the result here and in the other function you've
modified.
It looks like you're using the result in the next patch though, so I
wonder if you would be better to merge this patch with the next
one. However, as I said before I'll defer to Alexey on decisions about
how to split the patch series if he has a different opinion.
Regards,
Daniel
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
