On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 04:27:44PM +0800, Zhao, Yu wrote:
quoted text
> Export some functions and move some macros from c file to header file.

That's absolutely not everything this patch does.  You need to split
this into smaller pieces and explain what you're doing and why for each
of them.

quoted text
> diff --git a/drivers/pci/pci.h b/drivers/pci/pci.h
> index d807cd7..596efa6 100644
> --- a/drivers/pci/pci.h
> +++ b/drivers/pci/pci.h
> @@ -1,3 +1,9 @@
> +#ifndef DRIVERS_PCI_H
> +#define DRIVERS_PCI_H

Do we really need header guards on this file?

quoted text
> -/*
> - * If the type is not unknown, we assume that the lowest bit is 'enable'.
> - * Returns 1 if the BAR was 64-bit and 0 if it was 32-bit.
> +/**
> + * pci_read_base - read a PCI BAR
> + * @dev: the PCI device
> + * @type: type of the BAR
> + * @res: resource buffer to be filled in
> + * @pos: BAR position in the config space
> + *
> + * Returns 1 if the BAR is 64-bit, or 0 if 32-bit.
>   */
> -static int __pci_read_base(struct pci_dev *dev, enum pci_bar_type type,
> +int pci_read_base(struct pci_dev *dev, enum pci_bar_type type,

The original intent here was to have a pci_read_base() that called
__pci_read_base() and then did things like translate physical BAR
addresses to virtual ones.  That patch is in the archives somewhere.
We ended up not including that patch because my user found out he could
get the address he wanted from elsewhere.  I'm not sure we want to
remove the __ at this point.

The eventual goal is to fix up the BARs at this point, but there's
several architectures that will break if we do this now.  It's on my
long-term todo list.

quoted text
>                         struct resource *res, unsigned int pos)
>  {
>         u32 l, sz, mask;
> 
> -       mask = type ? ~PCI_ROM_ADDRESS_ENABLE : ~0;
> +       mask = (type == pci_bar_rom) ? ~PCI_ROM_ADDRESS_ENABLE : ~0;

What's going on here?  Why are you adding pci_bar_rom?  For the rom we
use pci_bar_mem32.  Take a look at, for example, the MCHBAR in the 965
spec (313053.pdf).  That's something that uses the pci_bar_mem64 type
and definitely wants to use the PCI_ROM_ADDRESS_ENABLE mask.

quoted text
> 
> -       if (type == pci_bar_unknown) {
> +       if (type == pci_bar_rom) {
> +               res->flags |= (l & IORESOURCE_ROM_ENABLE);
> +               l &= PCI_ROM_ADDRESS_MASK;
> +               mask = (u32)PCI_ROM_ADDRESS_MASK;
> +       } else {

This looks wrong too.

quoted text
>         if (rom) {
> @@ -344,7 +340,7 @@ static void pci_read_bases(struct pci_dev *dev, unsigned int howmany, int rom)
>                 res->flags = IORESOURCE_MEM | IORESOURCE_PREFETCH |
>                                 IORESOURCE_READONLY | IORESOURCE_CACHEABLE |
>                                 IORESOURCE_SIZEALIGN;
> -               __pci_read_base(dev, pci_bar_mem32, res, rom);
> +               pci_read_base(dev, pci_bar_mem32, res, rom);
>         }

And you don't even change the type here ... have you tested this code on
a system which has a ROM?

quoted text
> 
> -       for(i=0; i<3; i++)
> -               child->resource[i] = &dev->resource[PCI_BRIDGE_RESOURCES+i];
> -

Er, this is rather important.  Why can you just delete it?

-- 
Matthew Wilcox				Intel Open Source Technology Centre
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours.  We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/