On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 01:54:12PM +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
>On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 12:21:04PM +1000, Gavin Shan wrote:
>>On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 03:07:31PM +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
>>>This patch caches the index of a VF in its PF in pci_dn.
>>>
>>
>>At least you can mention the purpose of vf_index to make the commit log
>>complete. The following message looks better?
>>
>>The patch caches the VF index in pci_dn, which can be used to calculate
>>VF's bus, device and function number. Those information helps to locate
>>the VF's PCI device instance when doing hotplug during EEH recovery if
>>necessary.
>>
>
>Thanks, looks better. I added it in the log.
>
>>>Signed-off-by: Wei Yang <weiy...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>>---
>>> arch/powerpc/include/asm/pci-bridge.h | 1 +
>>> arch/powerpc/kernel/pci_dn.c | 5 +++--
>>> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>>diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/pci-bridge.h
>>>b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/pci-bridge.h
>>>index 1811c44..9582aa2 100644
>>>--- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/pci-bridge.h
>>>+++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/pci-bridge.h
>>>@@ -199,6 +199,7 @@ struct pci_dn {
>>> #ifdef CONFIG_PCI_IOV
>>> u16 vfs_expanded; /* number of VFs IOV BAR expanded */
>>> u16 num_vfs; /* number of VFs enabled*/
>>>+ int vf_index; /* Index to PF for VF dev */
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> /* VF index in the PF */
>
>Ok, changed in the code.
>
>>
>>And I believe it can be "unsigned int", or u16. We should have
>>non-negative vf_index, no?
>
>Take a look in the virtfn_add(), the index in drivers/pci/iov.c is int. So I
>copy that.
>
>>
>>> int offset; /* PE# for the first VF PE */
>>> #define M64_PER_IOV 4
>>> int m64_per_iov;
>>>diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/pci_dn.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/pci_dn.c
>>>index b3b4df9..bf0fb873 100644
>>>--- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/pci_dn.c
>>>+++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/pci_dn.c
>>>@@ -138,7 +138,7 @@ struct pci_dn *pci_get_pdn(struct pci_dev *pdev)
>>>
>>> #ifdef CONFIG_PCI_IOV
>>> static struct pci_dn *add_one_dev_pci_data(struct pci_dn *parent,
>>>- struct pci_dev *pdev,
>>>+ struct pci_dev *pdev, int vf_index,
>>
>> struct pci_dev *pdev,
>> int vf_index;
>
>Some reason for this comment?
>
>That does not exceed 80 characters.
>
No, it doesn't exceed 80 characters as you said. You take one of the following
formats, not the one you're using:
add_one_dev_pci_data(foo1, foo2, add_one_dev_pci_data(foo1,
foo3, foo4, foo2,
foo5, foo6); :
foo6);
>>> int busno, int devfn)
>>> {
>>> struct pci_dn *pdn;
>>>@@ -157,6 +157,7 @@ static struct pci_dn *add_one_dev_pci_data(struct pci_dn
>>>*parent,
>>> pdn->parent = parent;
>>> pdn->busno = busno;
>>> pdn->devfn = devfn;
>>>+ pdn->vf_index = vf_index;
>>> #ifdef CONFIG_PPC_POWERNV
>>> pdn->pe_number = IODA_INVALID_PE;
>>> #endif
>>>@@ -196,7 +197,7 @@ struct pci_dn *add_dev_pci_data(struct pci_dev *pdev)
>>> return NULL;
>>>
>>> for (i = 0; i < pci_sriov_get_totalvfs(pdev); i++) {
>>>- pdn = add_one_dev_pci_data(parent, NULL,
>>>+ pdn = add_one_dev_pci_data(parent, NULL, i,
>>> pci_iov_virtfn_bus(pdev, i),
>>> pci_iov_virtfn_devfn(pdev, i));
>>> if (!pdn) {
Thanks,
Gavin
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
