On 2012-7-11 2:35, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/access.c b/drivers/pci/access.c
>> index ba91a7e..80ae022 100644
>> --- a/drivers/pci/access.c
>> +++ b/drivers/pci/access.c
>> @@ -469,3 +469,91 @@ void pci_cfg_access_unlock(struct pci_dev *dev)
>> raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pci_lock, flags);
>> }
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pci_cfg_access_unlock);
>> +
>> +static int
>> +pci_pcie_cap_get_offset(struct pci_dev *dev, int where, size_t sz)
>> +{
>> + bool valid;
>> +
>> + if (!pci_is_pcie(dev))
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> + if (where & (sz - 1))
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> + if (where < 0)
>> + valid = false;
>> + else if (where < PCI_EXP_DEVCAP)
>> + valid = true;
>> + else if (where < PCI_EXP_LNKCAP)
>> + valid = pci_pcie_cap_has_devctl(dev);
>> + else if (where < PCI_EXP_SLTCAP)
>> + valid = pci_pcie_cap_has_lnkctl(dev);
>> + else if (where < PCI_EXP_RTCTL)
>> + valid = pci_pcie_cap_has_sltctl(dev);
>> + else if (where < PCI_EXP_DEVCAP2)
>> + valid = pci_pcie_cap_has_rtctl(dev);
>> + else if (where < PCI_EXP_CAP2_SIZE)
>> + valid = pci_pcie_cap_has_cap2(dev);
>> + else
>> + valid = false;
>> +
>> + return valid ? where + pci_pcie_cap(dev) : -EINVAL;
>> +}
>> +
>> +int pci_pcie_cap_read_word(struct pci_dev *dev, int where, u16 *valp)
>> +{
>> + *valp = 0;
>> + where = pci_pcie_cap_get_offset(dev, where, sizeof(u16));
>
> This is a really slick factorization; I like it much better than my
> proposal. I would like it even *better* if it read something like
> this:
>
> bool implemented;
>
> *valp = 0;
> if (!pci_is_pcie(dev) || where & 1)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> implemented = pci_pcie_cap_implemented(dev, where);
> if (implemented)
> return pci_read_config_word(dev, pci_pcie_cap(dev) + where, valp);
>
> if (pci_is_pcie(dev) && where == PCI_EXP_SLTSTA ...
>
> because I think it's useful to have the "pos + where" visual pattern
> in the pci_read_config_word() arguments.
Sure, for better readability.
>
>> + if (where >= 0)
>> + return pci_read_config_word(dev, where, valp);
>> +
>> + if (pci_is_pcie(dev) && where == PCI_EXP_SLTSTA &&
>> + pci_pcie_type(dev) == PCI_EXP_TYPE_DOWNSTREAM)
>> + *valp = PCI_EXP_SLTSTA_PDS;
>
> I think we should be returning success in this case (SLTSTA for
> downstream port). In fact, I think we should return success even when
> we're emulating the read of an unimplemented register from a v1
> capability. The caller should not be aware at all that there is a
> difference between v1 and v2 capabilities.
>
> I'd put the spec reference here rather than in read_dword(), since
> SLTSTA is a u16 and this is the natural way to read it. Then maybe a
> short comment in read_dword() below.
Good point. Return success when reading unimplemented registeres, that
may simplify code. For we still should return -EINVAL when writing
unimplemented registers, right?
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(pci_pcie_cap_write_dword);
>> diff --git a/include/linux/pci.h b/include/linux/pci.h
>> index 346b2d9..78767b2 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/pci.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/pci.h
>> @@ -1703,6 +1703,11 @@ static inline bool pci_pcie_cap_has_rtctl(const struct pci_dev *pdev)
>> type == PCI_EXP_TYPE_RC_EC;
>> }
>>
>> +extern int pci_pcie_cap_read_word(struct pci_dev *dev, int where, u16 *valp);
>> +extern int pci_pcie_cap_read_dword(struct pci_dev *dev, int where, u32 *valp);
>> +extern int pci_pcie_cap_write_word(struct pci_dev *dev, int where, u16 val);
>> +extern int pci_pcie_cap_write_dword(struct pci_dev *dev, int where, u32 val);
>
> You don't need the "extern" here (and I think you'll probably remove
> these altogether, see below).
>
>> +
>> void pci_request_acs(void);
>> bool pci_acs_enabled(struct pci_dev *pdev, u16 acs_flags);
>> bool pci_acs_path_enabled(struct pci_dev *start,
>> @@ -1843,5 +1848,10 @@ static inline struct eeh_dev *pci_dev_to_eeh_dev(struct pci_dev *pdev)
>> */
>> struct pci_dev *pci_find_upstream_pcie_bridge(struct pci_dev *pdev);
>>
>> +int pci_pcie_capability_read_word(struct pci_dev *dev, int where, u16 *val);
>> +int pci_pcie_capability_read_dword(struct pci_dev *dev, int where, u32 *val);
>> +int pci_pcie_capability_write_word(struct pci_dev *dev, int where, u16 val);
>> +int pci_pcie_capability_write_dword(struct pci_dev *dev, int where, u32 val);
>
> There's some confusion here: pci_pcie_cap_* versus
> pci_pcie_capability_*. I think you only need one set, and I prefer
> pci_pcie_capability_* to follow the example of
> pci_bus_find_capability().
The above confusion was caused by a dirty merge.
>
>> +
>> #endif /* __KERNEL__ */
>> #endif /* LINUX_PCI_H */
>> diff --git a/include/linux/pci_regs.h b/include/linux/pci_regs.h
>> index 53274bf..ac60e22 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/pci_regs.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/pci_regs.h
>> @@ -542,9 +542,24 @@
>> #define PCI_EXP_OBFF_MSGA_EN 0x2000 /* OBFF enable with Message type A */
>> #define PCI_EXP_OBFF_MSGB_EN 0x4000 /* OBFF enable with Message type B */
>> #define PCI_EXP_OBFF_WAKE_EN 0x6000 /* OBFF using WAKE# signaling */
>> -#define PCI_CAP_EXP_ENDPOINT_SIZEOF_V2 44 /* v2 endpoints end here */
>> +#define PCI_EXP_DEVSTA2 42 /* Device Status 2 */
>> +#define PCI_CAP_EXP_ENDPOINT_SIZEOF_V2 44 /* v2 endpoints end here */
>> +#define PCI_EXP_LNKCAP2 44 /* Link Capabilities 2 */
>> #define PCI_EXP_LNKCTL2 48 /* Link Control 2 */
>> -#define PCI_EXP_SLTCTL2 56 /* Slot Control 2 */
>> +#define PCI_EXP_LNKCTL2_TLS 0x0f /* Target Link Speed */
>> +#define PCI_EXP_LNKCTL2_EC 0x10 /* Enter Compliance */
>> +#define PCI_EXP_LNKCTL2_HASD 0x20 /* Hardware Autonomous Speed Disable */
>> +#define PCI_EXP_LNKCTL2_SD 0x40 /* Selectable De-emphasis */
>> +#define PCI_EXP_LNKCTL2_TM 0x380 /* Transmit Margin */
>> +#define PCI_EXP_LNKCTL2_EMC 0x400 /* Enter Modified Compliance */
>> +#define PCI_EXP_LNKCTL2_CS 0x800 /* Compliance SOS */
>> +#define PCI_EXP_LNKCTL2_CD 0x1000 /* Compliance De-emphasis */
>> +#define PCI_EXP_LNKSTA2 50 /* Link Status 2 */
>> +#define PCI_EXP_LNKSTA2_CDL 0x01 /* Current De-emphasis Level */
>> +#define PCI_EXP_SLTCAP2 52 /* Slot Capabilities 2 */
>> +#define PCI_EXP_SLTCTL2 56 /* Slot Control 2*/
>> +#define PCI_EXP_SLTSTA2 58 /* Slot Status 2*/
>> +#define PCI_EXP_CAP2_SIZE 60
>
> Most of these changes look unrelated to the current patch. They
> should be moved to a patch that uses the symbols you're adding.
Good point, create on demand:)
Thanks!
Gerry
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
