On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 07:43:21AM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> On 3 January 2018 at 22:44, Sinan Kaya <okaya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 12/19/2017 12:37 AM, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> >> pci_get_bus_and_slot() is restrictive such that it assumes domain=0 as
> >> where a PCI device is present. This restricts the device drivers to be
> >> reused for other domain numbers.
>
> So not a major problem, but it would be pretty much impossible for either
> of these agp drivers to be used in any other domain ever.
>
> What does this buy us, maybe just rename pci_get_bus_and_slot to
> pci_get_domain0_bus_and_slot as a helper, or just pass the pdev in
> and have it do the right thing always.
I already have this patch on my "next" branch, planned for the v4.16
merge window, so it's done unless you have a major objection.
> >> Getting ready to remove pci_get_bus_and_slot() function in favor of
> >> pci_get_domain_bus_and_slot().
> >>
> >> Replace pci_get_bus_and_slot() with pci_get_domain_bus_and_slot()
> >> and extract the domain number from struct pci_dev.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Sinan Kaya <okaya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/char/agp/nvidia-agp.c | 12 +++++++++---
> >> drivers/char/agp/sworks-agp.c | 3 ++-
> >> 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/char/agp/nvidia-agp.c b/drivers/char/agp/nvidia-agp.c
> >> index 828b344..623205b 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/char/agp/nvidia-agp.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/char/agp/nvidia-agp.c
> >> @@ -340,11 +340,17 @@ static int agp_nvidia_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev,
> >> u8 cap_ptr;
> >>
> >> nvidia_private.dev_1 =
> >> - pci_get_bus_and_slot((unsigned int)pdev->bus->number, PCI_DEVFN(0, 1));
> >> + pci_get_domain_bus_and_slot(pci_domain_nr(pdev->bus),
> >> + (unsigned int)pdev->bus->number,
> >> + PCI_DEVFN(0, 1));
> >> nvidia_private.dev_2 =
> >> - pci_get_bus_and_slot((unsigned int)pdev->bus->number, PCI_DEVFN(0, 2));
> >> + pci_get_domain_bus_and_slot(pci_domain_nr(pdev->bus),
> >> + (unsigned int)pdev->bus->number,
> >> + PCI_DEVFN(0, 2));
> >> nvidia_private.dev_3 =
> >> - pci_get_bus_and_slot((unsigned int)pdev->bus->number, PCI_DEVFN(30, 0));
> >> + pci_get_domain_bus_and_slot(pci_domain_nr(pdev->bus),
> >> + (unsigned int)pdev->bus->number,
> >> + PCI_DEVFN(30, 0));
> >>
> >> if (!nvidia_private.dev_1 || !nvidia_private.dev_2 || !nvidia_private.dev_3) {
> >> printk(KERN_INFO PFX "Detected an NVIDIA nForce/nForce2 "
> >> diff --git a/drivers/char/agp/sworks-agp.c b/drivers/char/agp/sworks-agp.c
> >> index 03be4ac..4dbdd3b 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/char/agp/sworks-agp.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/char/agp/sworks-agp.c
> >> @@ -474,7 +474,8 @@ static int agp_serverworks_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev,
> >> }
> >>
> >> /* Everything is on func 1 here so we are hardcoding function one */
> >> - bridge_dev = pci_get_bus_and_slot((unsigned int)pdev->bus->number,
> >> + bridge_dev = pci_get_domain_bus_and_slot(pci_domain_nr(pdev->bus),
> >> + (unsigned int)pdev->bus->number,
> >> PCI_DEVFN(0, 1));
> >> if (!bridge_dev) {
> >> dev_info(&pdev->dev, "can't find secondary device\n");
> >>
> >
> > Any feedback here? most of the remaining patches have the ACK except these.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sinan Kaya
> > Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.
> > Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
--
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
