On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 05:59:58PM +0800, Dilip Kota wrote:
>
> On 12/11/2019 7:49 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 03:27:49PM +0800, Dilip Kota wrote:
> > > Add support to PCIe RC controller on Intel Gateway SoCs.
> > > PCIe controller is based of Synopsys DesignWare PCIe core.
> > >
> > > Intel PCIe driver requires Upconfigure support, Fast Training
> > > Sequence and link speed configurations. So adding the respective
> > > helper functions in the PCIe DesignWare framework.
> > > It also programs hardware autonomous speed during speed
> > > configuration so defining it in pci_regs.h.
> > >
> > > Also, mark Intel PCIe driver depends on MSI IRQ Domain
> > > as Synopsys DesignWare framework depends on the
> > > PCI_MSI_IRQ_DOMAIN.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Dilip Kota <eswara.kota@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@xxxxxxx>
> > > Reviewed-by: Andrew Murray <andrew.murray@xxxxxxx>
> > > Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Acked-by: Gustavo Pimentel <gustavo.pimentel@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > +static void pcie_update_bits(void __iomem *base, u32 ofs, u32 mask, u32 val)
> > > +{
> > > + u32 old;
> > > +
> > > + old = readl(base + ofs);
> > > + val = (old & ~mask) | (val & mask);
> > > +
> > > + if (val != old)
> > > + writel(val, base + ofs);
> > I assume this is never used on registers where the "old & ~mask" part
> > contains RW1C bits? If there are RW1C bits in that part, this will
> > corrupt them.
> There is no impact because RW1C bits of respective registers are 0s at the
> time of this function call.
Sounds ... dangerous, but I'll take your word for it.
> I see, this patch series is merged in the maintainer tree.
> Should i need to submit as a separate patch on top of maintainer tree or
> submit the new version of whole patch series?
> Please let me know the best practice.
Sorry, I didn't realize this had already been merged to Lorenzo's
tree. But it's not upstream (in Linus' tree) yet. I don't know how
Andrew and Lorenzo want to handle this. None of these are important,
so you could just ignore these comments.
What I personally would do is rebase the branch, e.g.,
lpieralisi/pci/dwc, and apply an incremental patch. But it's up to
Andrew and Lorenzo whether they want to do anything.
Bjorn
