On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 08:27:41PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Wednesday 23 September 2015 11:21:56 David Daney wrote: > > >> > > >> /* Limit the bus-range to fit within reg */ > > >> - bus_max = pci->cfg.bus_range->start + > > >> - (resource_size(&pci->cfg.res) >> pci->cfg.ops.bus_shift) - 1; > > >> + bus_max = (resource_size(&pci->cfg.res) >> pci->cfg.ops.bus_shift) - 1; > > >> + if (bus_max > 255) > > >> + bus_max = 255; > > > > > > I still don't understand the need for this part. If the cfg space is bigger > > > than bus_max, isn't that simply an invalid resource? Given that the resource > > > could be broken in other ways too, this check feels more like a specific > > > workaround rather than generally useful code. > > > > Imagine... > > > > bus-range [0x80 .. 0xff], this requires a cfg.res that will cover the > > entire range of 0..0xff. > > > > according to the calculations above, (resource_size(&pci->cfg.res) >> > > pci->cfg.ops.bus_shift) - 1 will have a value of 0xff, so... > > Extending the computation to 32 bit seems fine, but I'd rather warn loudly > if the bus range does not fit within the registers. > > Also note that the computation is already correct with my interpretation > of the reg property. >From what Lorenzo was saying, ACPI shares the interpretation that David is implementing here and, given that the DT version seems to be subjective, aligning this reg property with MMCFG seems to make sense. 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
