On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 01:53:12PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 02, 2018 at 09:37:03PM +0200, Niklas Cassel wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 03:17:11PM +0530, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Wednesday 28 March 2018 05:20 PM, Niklas Cassel wrote:
> > > > Since a 64-bit BAR consists of a BAR pair, we need to write to both
> > > > BARs in the BAR pair to setup the BAR properly.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Niklas Cassel <niklas.cassel@xxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-designware-ep.c | 11 +++++++++--
> > > > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-designware-ep.c b/drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-designware-ep.c
> > > > index 5a0bb53c795c..571b90f88d84 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-designware-ep.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-designware-ep.c
> > > > @@ -138,8 +138,15 @@ static int dw_pcie_ep_set_bar(struct pci_epc *epc, u8 func_no,
> > > > return ret;
> > > >
> > > > dw_pcie_dbi_ro_wr_en(pci);
> > > > - dw_pcie_writel_dbi2(pci, reg, size - 1);
> > > > - dw_pcie_writel_dbi(pci, reg, flags);
> > > > + if (flags & PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64) {
> > > > + dw_pcie_writel_dbi2(pci, reg, lower_32_bits(size - 1));
> > > > + dw_pcie_writel_dbi(pci, reg, flags);
> > > > + dw_pcie_writel_dbi2(pci, reg + 4, upper_32_bits(size - 1));
> > > > + dw_pcie_writel_dbi(pci, reg + 4, 0);
> > > > + } else {
> > > > + dw_pcie_writel_dbi2(pci, reg, size - 1);
> > > > + dw_pcie_writel_dbi(pci, reg, flags);
> > > > + }
> > >
> > >
> > > I think this should work too?
> > > dw_pcie_writel_dbi2(pci, reg, lower_32_bits(size - 1));
> > > dw_pcie_writel_dbi(pci, reg, flags);
> > >
> > > if (flags & PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64) {
> > > dw_pcie_writel_dbi2(pci, reg + 4, upper_32_bits(size - 1));
> > > dw_pcie_writel_dbi(pci, reg + 4, 0);
> > > }
> > >
> >
> > Hello Kishon,
> >
> > I agree, your suggestion is more neat.
> >
> >
> > Kishon, please tell me if you insist that the long if-statement
> > in pci_epc_set_bar() should be split, since there are 5 different
> > conditions. Because imho, having 5 succeeding if-statements isn't
> > clearer than having 1 long if-statement.
> >
> > If Kishon agrees with me, then the review comment in this mail
> > seems to be the only review comment.
> > And in that case, perhaps Lorenzo wouldn't mind fixing this up.
> > Or perhaps Lorenzo prefers if I reroll the whole patch series?
>
> I updated it myself in my pci/endpoint branch, please have a look, I
> can't guarantee we can merge this for this cycle though, I will ask
> Bjorn; apologies I could not be online for a while.
Hello Lorenzo,
your pci/endpoint branch looks good.
There is no rush, merge it whenever you think is best.
Have in mind that there is EP support @ patchwork for Rockchip
and for pcie-designware-plat, so make sure to juggle all the
branches with care :)
Kind regards,
Niklas
