On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 02:44:01PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 11:18:27 +0100, Andrew Murray <andrew.mur...@arm.com>
> wrote:
>
> Acked-by: Grant Likely <grant.lik...@secretlab.ca>
>
> But comments below...
>
I've updated the patchset (now v8) to reflect your feedback, after a closer
look...
> > -
> > - pr_debug("pci_space: 0x%08x pci_addr:0x%016llx ",
> > - pci_space, pci_addr);
> > - pr_debug("cpu_addr:0x%016llx size:0x%016llx\n",
> > - cpu_addr, size);
> > -
> > - ranges += np;
> > + pr_debug("pci_space: 0x%08x pci_addr: 0x%016llx ",
> > + range.pci_space, range.pci_addr);
> > + pr_debug("cpu_addr: 0x%016llx size: 0x%016llx\n",
> > + range.cpu_addr, range.size);
>
> Nit: the patch changed whitespace on the pr_debug() statements, so even
> though the first line of each is identical, they look different in the
> patch.
>
Actually the first line isn't identical, the original file was inconsistent
with its use of spaces between ':' and '0x%0' - my patch ensured that there
was always a space. I guess this could have been done as a separate patch.
> >
> > /* If we failed translation or got a zero-sized region
> > * (some FW try to feed us with non sensical zero sized regions
> > * such as power3 which look like some kind of attempt
> > * at exposing the VGA memory hole)
> > */
> > - if (cpu_addr == OF_BAD_ADDR || size == 0)
> > + if (range.cpu_addr == OF_BAD_ADDR || range.size == 0)
> > continue;
>
> Can this also be rolled into the parsing iterator?
>
I decided not to do this. Mainly because ARM drivers use the parser directly
(instead of pci_process_bridge_OF_ranges function) and it seemed perfectly
valid for the parser to return a range of size 0 if that is what was present in
the DT.
> >
> > - /* Now consume following elements while they are contiguous */
> > - for (; rlen >= np * sizeof(u32);
> > - ranges += np, rlen -= np * 4) {
> > - if (ranges[0] != pci_space)
> > - break;
> > - pci_next = of_read_number(ranges + 1, 2);
> > - cpu_next = of_translate_address(dev, ranges + 3);
> > - if (pci_next != pci_addr + size ||
> > - cpu_next != cpu_addr + size)
> > - break;
> > - size += of_read_number(ranges + pna + 3, 2);
> > - }
> > -
> > /* Act based on address space type */
> > res = NULL;
> > - switch ((pci_space >> 24) & 0x3) {
> > - case 1: /* PCI IO space */
> > + res_type = range.flags & IORESOURCE_TYPE_BITS;
> > + if (res_type == IORESOURCE_IO) {
>
> Why the change from switch() to an if/else if sequence?
I think this was an artifact of the patches evolution, I've reverted back to
the switch.
>
> But those are mostly nitpicks. If this is deferred to v3.10 then I would
> suggest fixing them up and posting for another round of review.
Andrew Murray
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
