On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 11:22:14AM +0100, Alexander Gordeev wrote:
> 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.
Okay. Then both work for me. Thanks,
-- peterx
