From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com ([217.140.96.50]:57153 "EHLO cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751342AbaEYKsr (ORCPT ); Sun, 25 May 2014 06:48:47 -0400 Date: Sun, 25 May 2014 11:48:15 +0100 From: Will Deacon To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" , "bhelgaas@google.com" , "jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com" , "sthokal@xilinx.com" Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 4/4] PCI: Generic Configuration Access Mechanism support Message-ID: <20140525104815.GB2343@arm.com> References: <1400863915-24135-1-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.com> <1400863915-24135-5-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.com> <201405232122.18995.arnd@arndb.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <201405232122.18995.arnd@arndb.de> Sender: linux-pci-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 08:22:18PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Friday 23 May 2014, Will Deacon wrote: > > +static void __iomem *pci_cfg_map_bus_ecam(struct pci_bus *bus, > > + unsigned int devfn, > > + int where) > > +{ > > + struct pci_sys_data *sys = bus->sysdata; > > + struct pci_cfg_windows *cfg = sys->private_data; > > + resource_size_t idx = bus->number - cfg->bus_range.start; > > + > > + return cfg->win[idx] + ((devfn << PCI_CFG_ECAM_DEV_NUM) | where); > > +} > > I just noticed that this function makes the code rather non-generic, because > struct pci_sys_data is the ARM specific structure that doesn't exist elsewhere, > and sys->private_data wouldn't typically point to struct pci_cfg_windows on > anything other than your generic PCI host. Indeed. That's what I was refering to initially when I suggested some potential alignment on the private_data across host controller drivers trying to use this. > I'd say let's drop this for now. I know it was my idea to do it like this, > but it seems it's more complex than I had hoped to get this right, and > I'd really prefer to merge the other three patches for 3.16 if possible. > We can factor it out later if we get more users. Sure, I think we all had good intentions. I'll send a pull for the first three patches -- should it go via arm-soc or Bjorn's PCI tree? Cheers, Will From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon) Date: Sun, 25 May 2014 11:48:15 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v7 4/4] PCI: Generic Configuration Access Mechanism support In-Reply-To: <201405232122.18995.arnd@arndb.de> References: <1400863915-24135-1-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.com> <1400863915-24135-5-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.com> <201405232122.18995.arnd@arndb.de> Message-ID: <20140525104815.GB2343@arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 08:22:18PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Friday 23 May 2014, Will Deacon wrote: > > +static void __iomem *pci_cfg_map_bus_ecam(struct pci_bus *bus, > > + unsigned int devfn, > > + int where) > > +{ > > + struct pci_sys_data *sys = bus->sysdata; > > + struct pci_cfg_windows *cfg = sys->private_data; > > + resource_size_t idx = bus->number - cfg->bus_range.start; > > + > > + return cfg->win[idx] + ((devfn << PCI_CFG_ECAM_DEV_NUM) | where); > > +} > > I just noticed that this function makes the code rather non-generic, because > struct pci_sys_data is the ARM specific structure that doesn't exist elsewhere, > and sys->private_data wouldn't typically point to struct pci_cfg_windows on > anything other than your generic PCI host. Indeed. That's what I was refering to initially when I suggested some potential alignment on the private_data across host controller drivers trying to use this. > I'd say let's drop this for now. I know it was my idea to do it like this, > but it seems it's more complex than I had hoped to get this right, and > I'd really prefer to merge the other three patches for 3.16 if possible. > We can factor it out later if we get more users. Sure, I think we all had good intentions. I'll send a pull for the first three patches -- should it go via arm-soc or Bjorn's PCI tree? Cheers, Will