Re: [PATCH 2/2] PCI: ultrarisc: Remove bypass_ob_mem_iatu variable on DP1000

[Niklas Cassel <cassel@kernel.org>]

On Mon, Oct 19, 2026 at 04:32:33PM +0800, Xincheng Ji wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 2026-10-19 06:53 +0000, sashiko-bot@kernel.org wrote:
> > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-ultrarisc.c b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-ultrarisc.c
> > > index 523f454c6c524..a0d328c0c09b7 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-ultrarisc.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-ultrarisc.c
> > > @@ -154,12 +154,6 @@ static int ultrarisc_pcie_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > >  
> > >  	pp = &pci->pp;
> > >  
> > > -	/*
> > > -	 * DP1000 routes MEM transactions without outbound iATU windows, which
> > > -	 * avoids the 16-window/4GB-per-window aperture limit.
> > > -	 */
> > > -	pp->bypass_ob_mem_iatu = true;
> > > -
> > 
> > [Severity: Low]
> > Does splitting this removal from the preceding commit ("PCI: dwc: Skip MEM
> > outbound iATU setup for identity mappings") break bisectability when
> > CONFIG_PCIE_ULTRARISC is enabled?
> > 
> > The preceding commit already removed the bypass_ob_mem_iatu field from
> > struct dw_pcie_rp in drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.h:
> > 
> > struct dw_pcie_rp {
> > 	...
> > 	bool			ecam_enabled;
> > 	bool			native_ecam;
> > -	bool			bypass_ob_mem_iatu;
> > 	bool                    skip_l23_ready;
> > 
> > while ultrarisc_pcie_probe() in drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-ultrarisc.c
> > still sets pp->bypass_ob_mem_iatu = true until this patch, causing a build
> > failure at the intermediate commit.
> > 
> > Should this change be squashed into the preceding commit (whose commit
> > message already states "Remove bypass_ob_mem_iatu and the UltraRISC-specific
> > setting"), or ordered before the struct member is removed from
> > struct dw_pcie_rp?
> > 
> > >  	platform_set_drvdata(pdev, ultra);
> > >  
> > >  	ret = ultrarisc_pcie_init_clks(ultra);
> > 
> Thanks for pointing this out.
> 
> Am I correct in understanding that the issue is with the dependency 
> between the patches,as the intermediate commit would fail to build 
> when `CONFIG_PCIE_ULTRARISC` is enabled?
> 
> Would you prefer that I reorder the patches so that the UltraRISC-specific 
> assignment is removed first, or squash the change into the preceding commit
> that removes `bypass_ob_mem_iatu`?
> 
> I'm happy to revise the series accordingly to ensure that each commit 
> builds independently.

I think squashing the two patches would be okay.


Kind regards,
Niklas