Hi Gustavo,
On 29/01/19 2:55 PM, Gustavo Pimentel wrote:
> Hi Kishon,
>
> On 14/01/2019 13:24, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
>> commit beb4641a787df79a ("PCI: dwc: Add MSI-X callbacks handler") while
>> adding MSI-X callback handler, introduced dw_pcie_ep_find_capability and
>> __dw_pcie_ep_find_next_cap for finding the MSI and MSIX capability.
>>
>> However if MSI or MSIX capability is the last capability (i.e there are
>> no additional items in the capabilities list and the Next Capability
>> Pointer is set to '0'), __dw_pcie_ep_find_next_cap will return '0'
>> even though MSI or MSIX capability may be present. This is because of
>> incorrect ordering of "next_cap_ptr" check. Fix it here.
>>
>> Fixes: beb4641a787df79a142 ("PCI: dwc: Add MSI-X callbacks handler")
>> Signed-off-by: Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@xxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware-ep.c | 10 +++++-----
>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware-ep.c b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware-ep.c
>> index d5144781005b..cd51b008858c 100644
>> --- a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware-ep.c
>> +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware-ep.c
>> @@ -46,16 +46,19 @@ static u8 __dw_pcie_ep_find_next_cap(struct dw_pcie *pci, u8 cap_ptr,
>> u8 cap_id, next_cap_ptr;
>> u16 reg;
>>
>> + if (!cap_ptr)
>> + return 0;
>> +
>
> Supposedly this was already verified by the function that calls this one.
Right, with with this fix cap_ptr is checked only once. This being a recursive
function, it makes sense to have the check only here instead of once in the
calling function and once here.
>
>> reg = dw_pcie_readw_dbi(pci, cap_ptr);
>> - next_cap_ptr = (reg & 0xff00) >> 8;
>> cap_id = (reg & 0x00ff);
>>
>> - if (!next_cap_ptr || cap_id > PCI_CAP_ID_MAX)
>> + if (cap_id > PCI_CAP_ID_MAX)
>> return 0;
>>
>> if (cap_id == cap)
>> return cap_ptr;
>>
>> + next_cap_ptr = (reg & 0xff00) >> 8;
>
> This fix seems to be a bit overdone, especially when you only need to swap the
> if blocks order to achieve the desired goal.
No, cap_id > PCI_CAP_ID_MAX is a base error case and it should checked before
returning the offset IMO.
>
>> return __dw_pcie_ep_find_next_cap(pci, next_cap_ptr, cap);
>> }
>>
>> @@ -67,9 +70,6 @@ static u8 dw_pcie_ep_find_capability(struct dw_pcie *pci, u8 cap)
>> reg = dw_pcie_readw_dbi(pci, PCI_CAPABILITY_LIST);
>> next_cap_ptr = (reg & 0x00ff);
>>
>> - if (!next_cap_ptr)
>> - return 0;
>> -
>
> Why remove it?
> If pointer is null, why to jump to another function to check is the the same
> pointer is null?
so that we check cap_ptr only once.
Thanks
Kishon
