On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 08:22:18PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday 23 May 2014, Will Deacon wrote:
> > +static void __iomem *pci_cfg_map_bus_ecam(struct pci_bus *bus,
> > + unsigned int devfn,
> > + int where)
> > +{
> > + struct pci_sys_data *sys = bus->sysdata;
> > + struct pci_cfg_windows *cfg = sys->private_data;
> > + resource_size_t idx = bus->number - cfg->bus_range.start;
> > +
> > + return cfg->win[idx] + ((devfn << PCI_CFG_ECAM_DEV_NUM) | where);
> > +}
>
> I just noticed that this function makes the code rather non-generic, because
> struct pci_sys_data is the ARM specific structure that doesn't exist elsewhere,
> and sys->private_data wouldn't typically point to struct pci_cfg_windows on
> anything other than your generic PCI host.
Indeed. That's what I was refering to initially when I suggested some
potential alignment on the private_data across host controller drivers
trying to use this.
> I'd say let's drop this for now. I know it was my idea to do it like this,
> but it seems it's more complex than I had hoped to get this right, and
> I'd really prefer to merge the other three patches for 3.16 if possible.
> We can factor it out later if we get more users.
Sure, I think we all had good intentions. I'll send a pull for the first
three patches -- should it go via arm-soc or Bjorn's PCI tree?
Cheers,
Will
--
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
