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
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
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 you don't even change the type here ... have you tested this code on
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."
I just pushed Yanmin's cleanups here, can you separate out the rest of your
See Matthew's comments here; the pci_read_base changes should be part of a
These resource_size changes seem like good cleanups by themselves, can you
Another good standalone cleanup, please submit separately.
Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center