Gavin Shan <[email protected]> writes: > This introduces pnv_ioda_init_pe() to initialize the specified PE > instance (phb->ioda.pe_array[x]). It's used by pnv_ioda_alloc_pe() > and pnv_ioda_reserve_pe(). No logical changes introduced. > > Signed-off-by: Gavin Shan <[email protected]> > --- > arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/pci-ioda.c | 14 ++++++++++---- > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/pci-ioda.c > b/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/pci-ioda.c > index ef93a01..488e0f8 100644 > --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/pci-ioda.c > +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/pci-ioda.c > @@ -129,6 +129,14 @@ static inline bool pnv_pci_is_mem_pref_64(unsigned long > flags) > (IORESOURCE_MEM_64 | IORESOURCE_PREFETCH)); > } > > +static struct pnv_ioda_pe *pnv_ioda_init_pe(struct pnv_phb *phb, int pe_no) > +{ > + phb->ioda.pe_array[pe_no].phb = phb; > + phb->ioda.pe_array[pe_no].pe_number = pe_no; > + > + return &phb->ioda.pe_array[pe_no]; You have the function returning the newly initalized PE here...
> +}
> +
> static void pnv_ioda_reserve_pe(struct pnv_phb *phb, int pe_no)
> {
> if (!(pe_no >= 0 && pe_no < phb->ioda.total_pe_num)) {
> @@ -141,8 +149,7 @@ static void pnv_ioda_reserve_pe(struct pnv_phb *phb, int
> pe_no)
> pr_debug("%s: PE %d was reserved on PHB#%x\n",
> __func__, pe_no, phb->hose->global_number);
>
> - phb->ioda.pe_array[pe_no].phb = phb;
> - phb->ioda.pe_array[pe_no].pe_number = pe_no;
> + pnv_ioda_init_pe(phb, pe_no);
... but then you ignore the result here and in the other function you've
modified.
It looks like you're using the result in the next patch though, so I
wonder if you would be better to merge this patch with the next
one. However, as I said before I'll defer to Alexey on decisions about
how to split the patch series if he has a different opinion.
Regards,
Daniel
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
