On Wednesday 28 March 2018 05:20 PM, Niklas Cassel wrote: > Since a 64-bit BAR consists of a BAR pair, and since there is no > BAR after BAR_5, BAR_5 cannot be 64-bits wide. > > This sanity check is done in pci_epc_set_bar(), so that we don't need > to do this sanity check in all epc->ops->set_bar() implementations. > > Signed-off-by: Niklas Cassel <niklas.cassel@xxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/pci/endpoint/pci-epc-core.c | 4 +++- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/endpoint/pci-epc-core.c b/drivers/pci/endpoint/pci-epc-core.c > index 784e33d6f229..109d75f0b7d2 100644 > --- a/drivers/pci/endpoint/pci-epc-core.c > +++ b/drivers/pci/endpoint/pci-epc-core.c > @@ -310,7 +310,9 @@ int pci_epc_set_bar(struct pci_epc *epc, u8 func_no, > int ret; > unsigned long irq_flags; > > - if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(epc) || func_no >= epc->max_functions) > + if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(epc) || func_no >= epc->max_functions || > + (epf_bar->barno == BAR_5 && > + epf_bar->flags & PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64)) > return -EINVAL; It's getting a bit lengthy. I'd prefer two separate ifs as that might be legible. But otherwise Acked-by: Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@xxxxxx> > > if (!epc->ops->set_bar) >
