Hi Arnd,
Thanks for the comments!
On 12/12/2014 07:30 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday 12 December 2014 19:14:00 Stanimir Varbanov wrote:
>> The PCIe driver reuse the Designware common code for host
>> and MSI initialization, and also program the Qualcomm
>> application specific registers.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Stanimir Varbanov <svarbanov@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Looks nice!
>
>> +static int
>> +qcom_pcie_rd_own_conf(struct pcie_port *pp, int where, int size, u32 *val)
>> +{
>> + if (where == PCI_CLASS_REVISION && size == 4) {
>> + *val = readl(pp->dbi_base + PCI_CLASS_REVISION);
>> + *val &= ~(0xffff << 16);
>> + *val |= PCI_CLASS_BRIDGE_PCI << 16;
>> + return PCIBIOS_SUCCESSFUL;
>> + }
>> +
>> + return dw_pcie_cfg_read(pp->dbi_base + (where & ~0x3), where,
>> + size, val);
>> +}
>
> Could you add a comment here to explain what this is for?
Sure I will add a comment. The issue is that the pci device class is not
reported correctly from the register.
>
>> +static int __init qcom_pcie_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> +{
>
> I think it's a bug to mark this function as __init. It breaks
> deferred probing and detaching/reattaching the device trough sysfs.
>
My bad, I have tried to avoid mismatch section warnings came up from
dw_pcie_host_init() which is annotated as __init. Do you think we need
to remove __init from dw_pcie_host_init() declaration and fix the
drivers accordingly?
> After you fix that, you can remove the __refdata below.
>
>> +static struct platform_driver __refdata qcom_pcie_driver = {
>> + .probe = qcom_pcie_probe,
>> + .remove = qcom_pcie_remove,
>> + .driver = {
>> + .name = "qcom-pcie",
>> + .of_match_table = qcom_pcie_match,
>> + },
>> +};
>
> Arnd
>
regards,
Stan
--
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
