On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 02:25:04PM +0800, Dongdong Liu wrote:
> The PCIe controller in Hip06/Hip07 SoCs is not completely
> ECAM-compliant. It is non-ECAM only for the RC bus config space; for
> any other bus underneath the root bus it does support ECAM access.
> This is to add the almost ECAM support in DT way.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dongdong Liu <liudongdong3@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Reviewed-by: Gabriele Paoloni <gabriele.paoloni@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Reviewed-by: Zhou Wang <wangzhou1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Applied to pci/host-hisi for v4.11, thanks!
> -#if defined(CONFIG_ACPI) && defined(CONFIG_PCI_QUIRKS)
> +#if defined(CONFIG_PCI_HISI) || (defined(CONFIG_ACPI) && defined(CONFIG_PCI_QUIRKS))
>
> static int hisi_pcie_acpi_rd_conf(struct pci_bus *bus, u32 devfn, int where,
> int size, u32 *val)
These "_acpi_" accessors are now used for both the ACPI and the DT
model, and the accessors aren't ACPI-specific anyway. So these are
slight misnomers.
> +static int hisi_pcie_platform_init(struct pci_config_window *cfg)
> +{
> + struct device *dev = cfg->parent;
> + struct platform_device *pdev = to_platform_device(dev);
> + struct resource *res;
> + void __iomem *reg_base;
> +
> + if (!dev->of_node)
> + return -EINVAL;
What's the point of testing dev->of_node here? There's no obvious
dependency on of_node in this code. Could we just drop this test?
> + res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 1);
> + if (!res) {
> + dev_err(dev, "missing \"reg[1]\"property\n");
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> +
> + reg_base = devm_ioremap(dev, res->start, resource_size(res));
> + if (!reg_base)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + cfg->priv = reg_base;
> + return 0;
> +}
