On 01/09/2013 01:43 PM, Thierry Reding wrote:
> From: Andrew Murray <andrew.murray@xxxxxxx>
>
> DT bindings for PCI host bridges often use the ranges property to describe
> memory and IO ranges - this binding tends to be the same across architectures
> yet several parsing implementations exist, e.g. arch/mips/pci/pci.c,
> arch/powerpc/kernel/pci-common.c, arch/sparc/kernel/pci.c and
> arch/microblaze/pci/pci-common.c (clone of PPC). Some of these duplicate
> functionality provided by drivers/of/address.c.
>
> This patch provides a common iterator-based parser for the ranges property, it
> is hoped this will reduce DT representation differences between architectures
> and that architectures will migrate in part to this new parser.
...
> diff --git a/drivers/of/address.c b/drivers/of/address.c
> +const __be32 *of_pci_process_ranges(struct device_node *node,
> + while (from + np <= end) {
> + u64 cpu_addr, size;
> +
> + cpu_addr = of_translate_address(node, from + na);
> + size = of_read_number(from + na + pna, ns);
> + res->flags = bus->get_flags(from);
> + from += np;
> +
> + if (cpu_addr == OF_BAD_ADDR || size == 0)
> + continue;
Hmmm. That seems to just ignore bad entries in the ranges property. Is
that really the right thing to do? At least printing a diagnostic might
be a good idea, even if the code does just soldier on in the hope
everything still works.
> + res->name = node->full_name;
> + res->start = cpu_addr;
> + res->end = res->start + size - 1;
> + res->parent = res->child = res->sibling = NULL;
> + return from;
> + }
> +
> + return NULL;
> +}
--
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
