On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 08:14:33PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 06:45:44PM +0100, Piotr Gregor wrote:
> > Hi Bjorn,
> >
> > The pci_cfg_access_lock is most likely not needed there.
> > The assignment by return type is indeed preferred in this case.
> >
> > However, you have changed the meaning of returned boolean information
> > by pci_intx_mask_broken leaving pci_intx_mask_supported unchanged.
> > The test should be:
> >
> > if (new != toggle) /* the test failed */
> > return 1;
> > return 0;
>
> Oh, you're absolutely right, thanks for catching that! I updated my
> pci/enumeration branch.
>
> > Regarding v2.3 - do you think it is worth to apply the check
> > so we would have something like
> >
> > if ((new == toggle) || PCI_VERSION_PRIOR_TO_23) /* test OK or PCI prior
> > to r2.3 */
> > return 0;
> > return 1;
>
> I'm not sure how to test for r2.3 compliance. But even if we could, I
> guess I think the current code is probably better because it actually
> checks the property we care about, not a spec revision that is one
> step removed from the property.
>
> Bjorn
Hi Bjorn,
You are right, having
if ((new == toggle) || PCI_VERSION_PRIOR_TO_23) /* test OK or PCI prior
to r2.3 */
return 0;
return 1;
would be incorrect, as if new != toggle then PCI_COMMAND_INTX_DISABLE is not
writable
so INTx masking support should be considered broken (regardless of PCI version).
Piotr
