On 29/12/2019 03:45, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Sat 28 Dec 07:41 PST 2019, Marc Gonzalez wrote:
>
>> On 27/12/2019 09:51, Stanimir Varbanov wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/27/19 3:27 AM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
>>>
>>>> There exists non-bridge PCIe devices with PCI_VENDOR_ID_QCOM, so limit
>>>> the fixup to only affect the relevant PCIe bridges.
>>>>
>>>> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> Signed-off-by: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> Stan, I picked up all the suggested device id's from the previous thread and
>>>> added 0x1000 for QCS404. I looked at creating platform specific defines in
>>>> pci_ids.h, but SDM845 has both 106 and 107... Please let me know if you would
>>>> prefer that I do this anyway.
>>>
>>> Looks good,
>>>
>>> Acked-by: Stanimir Varbanov <svarbanov@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>>> drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom.c | 8 +++++++-
>>>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom.c b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom.c
>>>> index 5ea527a6bd9f..138e1a2d21cc 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom.c
>>>> @@ -1439,7 +1439,13 @@ static void qcom_fixup_class(struct pci_dev *dev)
>>>> {
>>>> dev->class = PCI_CLASS_BRIDGE_PCI << 8;
>>>> }
>>>> -DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_EARLY(PCI_VENDOR_ID_QCOM, PCI_ANY_ID, qcom_fixup_class);
>>>> +DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_EARLY(PCI_VENDOR_ID_QCOM, 0x0101, qcom_fixup_class);
>>>> +DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_EARLY(PCI_VENDOR_ID_QCOM, 0x0104, qcom_fixup_class);
>>>> +DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_EARLY(PCI_VENDOR_ID_QCOM, 0x0106, qcom_fixup_class);
>>>> +DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_EARLY(PCI_VENDOR_ID_QCOM, 0x0107, qcom_fixup_class);
>>>> +DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_EARLY(PCI_VENDOR_ID_QCOM, 0x0302, qcom_fixup_class);
>>>> +DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_EARLY(PCI_VENDOR_ID_QCOM, 0x1000, qcom_fixup_class);
>>>> +DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_EARLY(PCI_VENDOR_ID_QCOM, 0x1001, qcom_fixup_class);
>>
>> Hrmmm... still not CCed on the patch,
>
> You are Cc'ed on the patch, but as usual your mail server responds "451
> too many errors from your ip" and throw my emails away.
>
>> and still don't think the fixup is required(?) for 0x106 and 0x107.
>>
>
> I re-read your reply in my v1 thread. So we know that 0x104 doesn't need
> the fixup, so presumably only 0x101 needs the fixup?
I apologize for the tone of my reply. I did not mean to sound
so snarky.
All I can say is that, if I remember correctly, the fixup was
not necessary on apq8098 (0x0105) and it was probably not
required on msm8996 and sdm845. For older platforms, all bets
are off.
Regards.
