On Sunday 18 May 2014 19:38:45 Srikanth Thokala wrote:
> +
> + if (cfg->ops->is_valid_cfg_access) {
> + if (!cfg->ops->is_valid_cfg_access(bus, devfn)) {
> + *val = PCI_CFG_INVALID_DEVFN;
> + return PCIBIOS_DEVICE_NOT_FOUND;
> + }
> + }
Can you explain why this callback is needed? If the space for the
bus is mapped, any access should just work.
> +
> +/* Generic PCI CAM/ECAM Configuration Bus Operations */
> +
> +struct pci_cfg_bus_ops pci_cfg_cam_bus_ops = {
> + .bus_shift = PCI_CFG_CAM_BUS_NUM,
> + .map_bus = pci_cfg_map_bus_cam,
> +};
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pci_cfg_cam_bus_ops);
> +
> +struct pci_cfg_bus_ops pci_cfg_ecam_bus_ops = {
> + .bus_shift = PCI_CFG_ECAM_BUS_NUM,
> + .map_bus = pci_cfg_map_bus_ecam,
> +};
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pci_cfg_ecam_bus_ops);
> +
> +struct pci_ops pci_cfg_ops = {
> + .read = pci_cfg_read,
> + .write = pci_cfg_write,
> +};
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pci_cfg_ops);
If we can find a way to remove the is_valid_cfg_access() check, we're
probably better off removing the cfg_bus_ops as well, and exporting
two sets of pci_ops. There will be a little more duplication here, but
also less complexity in this module, and more importantly in the drivers
using it.
Arnd
--
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
