On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 07:40:21PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> PCI device unit addresses are in the form DD or DD,F where DD is the
> device 0-0x1f and F is the function 0-7. Add checks that the unit
> address matches this form.
Hmm.. we ought to be able to do a bit better than this, again by
constructing the expected unit address from reg. While we're at it,
it probably makes sense to have that dependent on a check which makes
sure the first entry in a pci device's 'reg' is the config address.
Hmm.. I wonder if what might make sense is to have two whole
(possible) sublists of tests within the bus_type structure - one, a
list of checks to apply to bridge nodes and the other a list of checks
to apply to bus device nodes.
> Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> checks.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/checks.c b/checks.c
> index 82a7f38..1d0fcfb 100644
> --- a/checks.c
> +++ b/checks.c
> @@ -549,10 +549,30 @@ static bool is_pci_bridge(struct node *node)
> return false;
> }
>
> +static void pci_unit_addr(struct check *c, struct node *dt, struct node *node)
> +{
> + const char *unitname = get_unitname(node);
> + unsigned int dev, func;
> + int ret;
> +
> + ret = sscanf(unitname, "%2x,%1x", &dev, &func);
> + if (ret >= 1) {
> + if (dev > 0x1f)
> + FAIL(c, "Node %s PCI device number out of range",
> + node->fullpath);
> + }
> + if (ret == 2) {
> + if (func > 7)
> + FAIL(c, "Node %s PCI function number out of range",
> + node->fullpath);
> + }
> +}
> +
> struct bus_type pci_bus_type = {
> .expected_addr_cells = 3,
> .expected_size_cells = 2,
> .is_type = is_pci_bridge,
> + .check_unit_addr = pci_unit_addr,
> };
>
> static bool is_simple_bridge(struct node *node)
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
