From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mout-p-201.mailbox.org (mout-p-201.mailbox.org [80.241.56.171]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A3DB227467F; Fri, 5 Sep 2025 18:41:59 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=80.241.56.171 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1757097721; cv=none; b=OfPfkG8vavooxAAHoAiedQ8M6w3tteEZl89NRbQi5VBbbLtTu4YtOjC04zuqEmCd8Lv04WfO+K6/9fxJHBRSifuMVvLrFtdY4mZ5Orp5DI/V4AC6MheD6SIT8e5vg/FHNgAjwGv9C9LS+yQQHCxv1rtd7xLscAijLESpmRLaiLg= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1757097721; c=relaxed/simple; bh=K9jtQs5j3QRMxeewLxNfsL/mNQI/uM1HUPGRB0r9uEE=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=EQcPpUxres3UVKxrwzUlHnmybojZLagD6hQYr0fy9mTCtEG1mnp3zr35jCfpugPRw/2g1BOYUJGtKSWpt2C5lfvKJXYVt51c4ECxpb2v2JHfVXhxC9n38z5kPot0vAU1JBbDJQSaHVfHUJkW6N7Uwwng/0VQL3R70baIaVqqMZ8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=mailbox.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mailbox.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mailbox.org header.i=@mailbox.org header.b=CLgxvrlH; arc=none smtp.client-ip=80.241.56.171 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=mailbox.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mailbox.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mailbox.org header.i=@mailbox.org header.b="CLgxvrlH" Received: from smtp2.mailbox.org (smtp2.mailbox.org [IPv6:2001:67c:2050:b231:465::2]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mout-p-201.mailbox.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4cJQDh0tYWz9tgf; Fri, 5 Sep 2025 20:41:56 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mailbox.org; s=mail20150812; t=1757097716; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=NFlUyN+7jtcnbZceOxFSBadwGYBOZh16DUAu7RRTqBA=; b=CLgxvrlHXdbd7QLy8sNA763rx4NjevBE+ctoGzY7xBuzCmWowUx+pcPPAyzWKyQy8W0MfP ZdBNPPh7q2PITsenJs/H/QZdFZzS4dMJlfoTE9riP5f1vzQOPD31AsPFSzEyJIosel2dYR KJGQ5wnVRa/q3esLVkA/hE0K6EqDh32gefSPNS3GUCTHv+GL7ycbVYOj8SlmOnfuDIfw1d 91Y4LDlilTyC1tdPJlYbP3z34kMzrWZ/L7jdtSZ5S7ru6pRl0k2w2c2Z2Wz6k2KlpDqL4E dtQgBaD+ErIDv7Je5VpMaJqYECaBd8nrCqauZePQrLk4fpa06wUNGjfxIoQeUQ== Message-ID: <23b3e8e2-ba9d-4cb3-907e-3de7f2693b60@mailbox.org> Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2025 20:41:53 +0200 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] PCI: endpoint: pci-epf-test: Limit PCIe BAR size for fixed BARs To: Niklas Cassel Cc: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, =?UTF-8?Q?Krzysztof_Wilczy=C5=84ski?= , Bjorn Helgaas , Damien Le Moal , Frank Li , Jerome Brunet , Kishon Vijay Abraham I , Manivannan Sadhasivam , Wang Jiang , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org References: <20250905121259.9378-1-marek.vasut+renesas@mailbox.org> Content-Language: en-US From: Marek Vasut In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-MBO-RS-META: ez4feoizgzobrxefods6gmzf5wtgdnh9 X-MBO-RS-ID: 61fd2360f4c34ad6a9f On 9/5/25 2:27 PM, Niklas Cassel wrote: > On Fri, Sep 05, 2025 at 02:12:43PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: >> Currently, the test allocates BAR sizes according to fixed table >> bar_size[] = { 512, 512, 1024, 16384, 131072, 1048576 } . This >> does not work with controllers which have fixed size BARs, like >> Renesas R-Car V4H PCIe controller, which has BAR4 size limited >> to 256 Bytes, which is much less than 131072 currently requested >> by this test. > > Perhaps rephase this to more clearly state that: > This does not work with controllers with have fixed size BARs that is > smaller than the requested BAR size. > > (Since a lot of controllers drivers in-tree have fixed size BARs, > and they do work perfectly fine, but it is only because their fixed > size is larger than the size requested by pci-epf-test.c) > > >> >> Adjust the test such, that in case a fixed size BAR is detected >> on a controller, minimum of requested size and fixed size BAR >> size is used during the test instead. > > This sentence needs to be updated, since you no longer take the minimum > of requested size and fixed size BAR. > > Perhaps simply: > "Adjust the test such that in case a fixed size BAR is detected, > the fixed BAR size is used, as that is the only possibly option." > > > With that: > Reviewed-by: Niklas Cassel All done in V3, which I will send shortly. Thank you