From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: tn@semihalf.com (Tomasz Nowicki)
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 15:35:34 +0200
Subject: [RFC PATCH 1/3] pci, acpi: Match PCI config space accessors
 against platfrom specific ECAM quirks.
In-Reply-To: <9294389.sZPDtyjoUs@wuerfel>
References: <1464856864-18049-1-git-send-email-tn@semihalf.com>
 <4347711.qDrKz2s8lr@wuerfel> <5750218F.9030406@semihalf.com>
 <9294389.sZPDtyjoUs@wuerfel>
Message-ID: <57503626.9050208@semihalf.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On 02.06.2016 14:32, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday, June 2, 2016 2:07:43 PM CEST Tomasz Nowicki wrote:
>> On 02.06.2016 13:42, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>> On Thursday, June 2, 2016 10:41:01 AM CEST Tomasz Nowicki wrote:
>>>> +struct pci_ecam_ops *pci_mcfg_get_ops(struct acpi_pci_root *root)
>>>> +{
>>>> +       int bus_num = root->secondary.start;
>>>> +       int domain = root->segment;
>>>> +       struct pci_cfg_fixup *f;
>>>> +
>>>> +       if (!mcfg_table)
>>>> +               return &pci_generic_ecam_ops;
>>>> +
>>>> +       /*
>>>> +        * Match against platform specific quirks and return corresponding
>>>> +        * CAM ops.
>>>> +        *
>>>> +        * First match against PCI topology <domain:bus> then use OEM ID and
>>>> +        * OEM revision from MCFG table standard header.
>>>> +        */
>>>> +       for (f = __start_acpi_mcfg_fixups; f < __end_acpi_mcfg_fixups; f++) {
>>>> +               if ((f->domain == domain || f->domain == PCI_MCFG_DOMAIN_ANY) &&
>>>> +                   (f->bus_num == bus_num || f->bus_num == PCI_MCFG_BUS_ANY) &&
>>>> +                   (!strncmp(f->oem_id, mcfg_table->header.oem_id,
>>>> +                             ACPI_OEM_ID_SIZE)) &&
>>>> +                   (f->oem_revision == mcfg_table->header.oem_revision))
>>>> +                       return f->ops;
>>>> +       }
>>>> +       /* No quirks, use ECAM */
>>>> +       return &pci_generic_ecam_ops;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>>    int pci_mcfg_lookup(struct acpi_pci_root *root)
>>>
>>> Can you explain the use of pci_ecam_ops instead of pci_ops here?
>>>
>>
>> I wanted to get associated bus_shift and use it to setup configuration
>> region properly before calling pci_ecam_create. Please see next patch.
>>
>
> I see. It feels really odd to do it this way though, since having a
> nonstandard bus_shift essentially means not using anything resembling
> ECAM to start with.
>
> I realize that a lot of the host bridges are not ECAM, but because
> of this, it would be more logical to have their own pci_ops instead
> of pci_ecam_ops.

Well, we have bus_shift there to express bus shift differentiation. So I 
would say we should change just structure name to prevent misunderstanding.

Thanks,
Tomasz