On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 05:55:01PM +0800, Peter Xu wrote:
> > bool pci_bar_is_valid(struct pci_dev *dev, int bar_num)
> > {
> > return dev->resource[bar_num] != INVALID_PHYS_ADDR;
> > }
(*)
> I see. Could I ask why we cannot just use INVALID_PHYS_ADDR for
> res[bar_num+1] when bar_num is 64bit (just like what patch 2 did)?
INVALID_PHYS_ADDR is already used to mark unimplemented BARs (*).
INVALID_PHYS_ADDR is also confusing if we think of index into
high-part of 64-bit address. A high-part is apparently valid.
> Thanks,
>
> -- peterx
