From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Zhou Wang Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] ACPI/PCI: Fix bus range comparation in pci_mcfg_lookup Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2017 17:07:10 +0800 Message-ID: <586B69BE.7050009@hisilicon.com> References: <1482397663-98715-1-git-send-email-wangzhou1@hisilicon.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com ([58.251.152.64]:31369 "EHLO szxga01-in.huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932210AbdACJOZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Jan 2017 04:14:25 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Tomasz Nowicki , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Len Brown , Jayachandran C , Lorenzo Pieralisi , jorn Helgaas Cc: liudongdong3@huawei.com, gabriele.paoloni@huawei.com, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2017/1/3 14:39, Tomasz Nowicki wrote: > On 22.12.2016 10:07, Zhou Wang wrote: >> Multiple PCIe host bridges may exists in one PCIe segment. So bus range for each >> host bridge should be in the coverage of bus range of related PCIe segment. >> >> This patch will support this kind of scenario: >> >> MCFG: >> bus range: 0x00~0xff. >> segment: 0. >> DSDT: >> host bridge 1: >> bus range: 0x00~0x1f. >> segment: 0. >> host bridge 2: >> bus range: 0x20~0x4f. >> segment: 0. >> >> Signed-off-by: Zhou Wang >> --- >> drivers/acpi/pci_mcfg.c | 5 ++--- >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/pci_mcfg.c b/drivers/acpi/pci_mcfg.c >> index b5b376e..46a3e32 100644 >> --- a/drivers/acpi/pci_mcfg.c >> +++ b/drivers/acpi/pci_mcfg.c >> @@ -40,11 +40,10 @@ phys_addr_t pci_mcfg_lookup(u16 seg, struct resource *bus_res) >> struct mcfg_entry *e; >> >> /* >> - * We expect exact match, unless MCFG entry end bus covers more than >> - * specified by caller. >> + * We expect the range in bus_res in the coverage of MCFG bus range. >> */ >> list_for_each_entry(e, &pci_mcfg_list, list) { >> - if (e->segment == seg && e->bus_start == bus_res->start && >> + if (e->segment == seg && e->bus_start <= bus_res->start && >> e->bus_end >= bus_res->end) >> return e->addr; >> } >> > > Looks good to me. > > Reviewed-by: Tomasz Nowicki Hi Tomasz, Thanks for your review. Regards, Zhou > > Thanks, > Tomasz > > . >