On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 8:05 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wednesday 07 May 2014 17:21:13 Srikanth Thokala wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 9:04 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Tuesday 15 April 2014, Srikanth Thokala wrote: >> >> +/** >> >> + * xilinx_pcie_get_config_base - Get configuration base >> >> + * @bus: Bus structure of current bus >> >> + * @devfn: Device/function >> >> + * @where: Offset from base >> >> + * >> >> + * Return: Base address of the configuration space needed to be >> >> + * accessed. >> >> + */ >> >> +static void __iomem *xilinx_pcie_get_config_base(struct pci_bus *bus, >> >> + unsigned int devfn, >> >> + int where) >> >> +{ >> >> + struct xilinx_pcie_port *port = sys_to_pcie(bus->sysdata); >> >> + int relbus; >> >> + >> >> + relbus = (bus->number << ECAM_BUS_NUM_SHIFT) | >> >> + (devfn << ECAM_DEV_NUM_SHIFT); >> >> + >> >> + return port->reg_base + relbus + where; >> >> +} >> > >> > Does this mean you have an ECAM-compliant config space? Nice! >> > >> > Would it be possible to split the config space access out into >> > a separate file? It would be nice to share that with the generic >> > ECAM driver that Will Deacon has sent. >> >> Yes, it should be possible. Is it ok, if I work on top of this driver? > > Do you mean as a follow-on patch? My feeling is that since we are trying > to merge both for 3.16, it would be good to get it done right away if > it doesn't cause too much extra work. Sure, I will work with Will and let you know. > >> >> +/** >> >> + * xilinx_pcie_enable_msi - Enable MSI support >> >> + * @port: PCIe port information >> >> + */ >> >> +static void xilinx_pcie_enable_msi(struct xilinx_pcie_port *port) >> >> +{ >> >> + port->msg_addr = __get_free_pages(GFP_KERNEL, 0); >> >> + >> >> + pcie_write(port, 0x0, XILINX_PCIE_REG_MSIBASE1); >> >> + pcie_write(port, virt_to_phys((void *)port->msg_addr), >> >> + XILINX_PCIE_REG_MSIBASE2); >> >> +} >> > >> > As a general comment about the MSI implementation, I wonder if this is actually >> > generic enough to be shared with other host controllers. It could be moved >> > into a separate file like the config space access in that case. >> >> I feel the MSI implementation is not generic by looking into the other >> host controllers, >> it is more specific to the hardware. Correct me, if am wrong. > > The other host controllers are certainly incompatible, but this one looks > like it could be used on other controllers easily. > > Splitting it out would also make it easier to use another MSI implementation > like the one in the GIC. I need to look into this and I will come back to you. > > >> >> + /* Register the device */ >> >> + pci_common_init_dev(dev, &hw); >> >> + >> >> + platform_set_drvdata(pdev, port); >> > >> > Don't you have to do the platform_set_drvdata() before pci_common_init_dev()? >> >> It should be fine, as I don't see any dependencies. > > Ah, it's only used in the remove function. It looks correct then, but I think > it would be better to set it first anyway, in case another function starts using > the drvdata later and that function may get called by the PCI initialization. Ok. Srikanth > > Arnd > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html