On 08.09.2022 13:49, Rahul Singh wrote: > is_memory_hole was implemented for x86 and not for ARM when introduced. > Replace is_memory_hole call to pci_check_bar as function should check > if device BAR is in defined memory range. Also, add an implementation > for ARM which is required for PCI passthrough. > > On x86, pci_check_bar will call is_memory_hole which will check if BAR > is not overlapping with any memory region defined in the memory map. > > On ARM, pci_check_bar will go through the host bridge ranges and check > if the BAR is in the range of defined ranges. > > Signed-off-by: Rahul Singh <rahul.si...@arm.com> > Acked-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> # x86, common
FTAOD: I object to this tagging, and I did not provide the ack with such tags. Quoting docs/process/sending-patches.pandoc: "The `Acked-by:` tag can only be given by a **maintainer** of the modified code, and it only covers the code the maintainer is responsible for." The doc provides for tagging here, yes, but such should only be used for the unusual case of an ack restricted to less than what a person's maintainership covers. Otherwise we'd end up seeing overly many tagged acks. (Recall that tagged R-b is also expected to be the exception, not the common case.) Jan
