Hi,
Às 5:19 AM de 1/16/2017, Kishon Vijay Abraham I escreveu:
> Hi,
>
> On Friday 13 January 2017 10:43 PM, Joao Pinto wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Às 10:25 AM de 1/12/2017, Kishon Vijay Abraham I escreveu:
>>> *num-lanes* dt property is parsed in dw_pcie_host_init. However
>>> *num-lanes* property is applicable to both root complex mode and
>>> endpoint mode. As a first step, move the parsing of this property
>>> outside dw_pcie_host_init. This is in preparation for splitting
>>> pcie-designware.c to pcie-designware.c and pcie-designware-host.c
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@xxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-designware.c | 18 +++++++++++-------
>>> drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-designware.h | 1 -
>>> 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-designware.c b/drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-designware.c
>>> index 00a0fdc..89cdb6b 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-designware.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-designware.c
>>> @@ -551,10 +551,6 @@ int dw_pcie_host_init(struct pcie_port *pp)
>>> }
>>> }
>>>
>>> - ret = of_property_read_u32(np, "num-lanes", &pci->lanes);
>>> - if (ret)
>>> - pci->lanes = 0;
>>> -
>>> ret = of_property_read_u32(np, "num-viewport", &pci->num_viewport);
>>> if (ret)
>>> pci->num_viewport = 2;
>>> @@ -751,18 +747,26 @@ static int dw_pcie_wr_conf(struct pci_bus *bus, u32 devfn,
>>>
>>> void dw_pcie_setup_rc(struct pcie_port *pp)
>>> {
>>> + int ret;
>>> + u32 lanes;
>>> u32 val;
>>> struct dw_pcie *pci = to_dw_pcie_from_pp(pp);
>>> + struct device *dev = pci->dev;
>>> + struct device_node *np = dev->of_node;
>>>
>>> /* get iATU unroll support */
>>> pci->iatu_unroll_enabled = dw_pcie_iatu_unroll_enabled(pci);
>>> dev_dbg(pci->dev, "iATU unroll: %s\n",
>>> pci->iatu_unroll_enabled ? "enabled" : "disabled");
>>>
>>> + ret = of_property_read_u32(np, "num-lanes", &lanes);
>>> + if (ret)
>>> + lanes = 0;
>>
>> You moved from host_init to root complex setup function, which in my opinion did
>> not improve (in this scope).
>>
>> I suggest that instead of making so much intermediary patches, which is nice to
>> understand your development sequence, but hard to review. Wouldn't be better to
>> condense some of the patches? We would have a cloear vision of the final product :)
>
> I thought the other way. If squashing patches is easier to review, I'll do it.
I understand. To break it in small pieces is good to understand clearly what is
done and how was done, but I would break too much. That's a personal opinion of
course, lets see what others say :).
Thanks,
Joao
>
> Btw, thanks for reviewing.
>
> Cheers
> Kishon
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
