On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Lucas Kannebley Tavares <lucaskt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > During the process of obtaining the speed cap for the device, it > attempts go get the PCI Host bus. However on architectures such as PPC > or IA64, those do not appear as devices. > > Signed-off-by: Lucas Kannebley Tavares <lucaskt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_pci.c | 5 +++++ > 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_pci.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_pci.c > index 754bc96..ea41234 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_pci.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_pci.c > @@ -479,8 +479,13 @@ int drm_pcie_get_speed_cap_mask(struct drm_device *dev, > u32 *mask) > if (!pci_is_pcie(dev->pdev)) > return -EINVAL; > > + // find PCI device for capabilities > root = dev->pdev->bus->self; > > + // some architectures might not have host bridges as PCI devices > + if (root == NULL) > + root = dev->pdev; You didn't address my question about this. Obviously this will avoid a null pointer dereference. But you have to also explain why this change is correct. If it's good enough to just look at the capabilities of the DRM device (not the upstream bridge) on PPC and ia64, why not do that everywhere and forget about the bridge completely? > pos = pci_pcie_cap(root); > if (!pos) > return -EINVAL; > > -- > Lucas Kannebley Tavares > Software Engineer > IBM Linux Technology Center > _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
