On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 02:55:39PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 08:40:48PM +0800, Peter Xu wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <peterx@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > lib/pci.h | 6 ++++++
> > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/lib/pci.h b/lib/pci.h
> > index b8755ff..6a1c3c9 100644
> > --- a/lib/pci.h
> > +++ b/lib/pci.h
> > @@ -18,6 +18,12 @@ enum {
> > #define PCI_BAR_NUM (6)
> > #define PCI_DEVFN_MAX (256)
> >
> > +#define PCI_BDF_GET_DEVFN(x) ((x) & 0xff)
> > +#define PCI_BDF_GET_BUS(x) (((x) >> 8) & 0xff)
> > +#define PCI_SLOT(devfn) (((devfn) >> 3) & 0x1f)
> > +#define PCI_FUNC(devfn) ((devfn) & 0x07)
> > +#define PCI_BUILD_BDF(bus, devfn) ((bus << 8) | (devfn))
>
> As I mention frequently; I know nothing about PCI, but this doesn't
> look right to me. DEVFN should be defined as
>
> #define PCI_DEVFN(slot, func) ((((slot) & 0x1f) << 3) | ((func) & 0x07))
>
> Care to explain these? Please provide the explanation in the commit
> message to along with a motivation for adding them.
Looks like the above lines are not conflicting? E.g., the above patch
(PCI_SLOT and PCI_FUNC) provides way to abstract slot/function out of
devfn value, while the one you mentioned (PCI_DEVFN) should be the
builder macro that builds a devfn value from its slot and function?
However... I just found that I didn't use
PCI_SLOT/PCI_FUNC/PCI_BUILD_BDF macros in the following patches, so
maybe I should just remove the last three of them...
Thanks,
-- peterx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
