On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 02:29:35PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> From: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> In rockchip_pcie_valid_device(), we do the exact same test twice:
>
> if (bus->number == rockchip->root_bus_nr && dev > 0)
> return 0;
> if (bus->number == rockchip->root_bus_nr && dev > 0)
> return 0;
>
> We only need to do it once, so remove one of them.
>
> Signed-off-by: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/pci/host/pcie-rockchip.c | 4 ----
> 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pci/host/pcie-rockchip.c b/drivers/pci/host/pcie-rockchip.c
> index 9051c6c8fea4..dd9c7ea69e0b 100644
> --- a/drivers/pci/host/pcie-rockchip.c
> +++ b/drivers/pci/host/pcie-rockchip.c
> @@ -293,10 +293,6 @@ static void rockchip_pcie_update_txcredit_mui(struct rockchip_pcie *rockchip)
> static int rockchip_pcie_valid_device(struct rockchip_pcie *rockchip,
> struct pci_bus *bus, int dev)
> {
> - /* access only one slot on each root port */
> - if (bus->number == rockchip->root_bus_nr && dev > 0)
> - return 0;
> -
> /*
> * do not read more than one device on the bus directly attached
> * to RC's downstream side.
>
Hi Bjorn,
this patch slipped through the cracks but I do not think it is right.
The point here is filtering both the host bridge access side (ie check
for dev > 0) AND the RC downstream side, it is two different busses.
Perhaps the check can be written in a more concise way (squash them in
one single conditional) but I think the current logic is correct,
AFAICS.
I would drop it from the PCI patch queue.
Thanks,
Lorenzo
_______________________________________________
Linux-rockchip mailing list
Linux-rockchip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-rockchip
