>>> On 20.03.18 at 21:53, <x19...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 03:36:57 -0600
> "Jan Beulich" <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 19.03.18 at 22:20, <x19...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 19 Mar 2018 17:49:09 +0000
>>> Roger Pau Monné <roger....@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 04:33:56AM +1000, Alexey Gerasimenko wrote:
>>>>> + switch (PCIEXBAR_LENGTH_BITS(reg))
>>>>> + {
>>>>> + case 0:
>>>>> + base &= PCIEXBAR_ADDR_MASK_256MB;
>>>>> + break;
>>>>> + case 1:
>>>>> + base &= PCIEXBAR_ADDR_MASK_128MB;
>>>>> + break;
>>>>> + case 2:
>>>>> + base &= PCIEXBAR_ADDR_MASK_64MB;
>>>>> + break;
>>>>
>>>>Missing newlines, plus this looks like it wants to use the defines
>>>>introduced in patch 7 (PCIEXBAR_{64,128,256}_BUSES). Also any reason
>>>>this patch and patch 7 cannot be put sequentially?
>>>
>>> I think all these #defines should find a way to pci_regs.h, it seems
>>> like an appropriate place for them.
>>
>>I don't think device specific defines belong into pci_regs.h.
>
> Will gather all these #defines and macros in the new pci_regs_q35.h
> file. It should not harm to include it from pci_regs.h I think, in
> order to include pci_regs.h only in *.c.
Well, no - no unnecessary dependencies please. If only a single
file needs these definitions, only that file should include the
respective header (if one is warranted in the first place).
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
