On Wednesday 28 March 2018 05:20 PM, Niklas Cassel wrote: > Since a 64-bit BAR consists of a BAR pair, and since there is no > BAR after BAR_5, BAR_5 cannot be 64-bits wide. > > This sanity check is done in pci_epc_clear_bar(), so that we don't need > to do this sanity check in all epc->ops->clear_bar() implementations. > > Signed-off-by: Niklas Cassel <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Kishon Vijay Abraham I <[email protected]> > --- > Kishon made a review comment that he wanted this: > https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=152161168226203 > > Personally, I don't think that this check is needed, > since pci_epc_set_bar() already does this check, > and no one should modify the flags after pci_epc_set_bar() > has been called. > > If everyone agrees, then this patch could be dropped. > > drivers/pci/endpoint/pci-epc-core.c | 4 +++- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/endpoint/pci-epc-core.c > b/drivers/pci/endpoint/pci-epc-core.c > index eccc942043cb..b0ee42739c3c 100644 > --- a/drivers/pci/endpoint/pci-epc-core.c > +++ b/drivers/pci/endpoint/pci-epc-core.c > @@ -285,7 +285,9 @@ void pci_epc_clear_bar(struct pci_epc *epc, u8 func_no, > { > unsigned long flags; > > - if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(epc) || func_no >= epc->max_functions) > + if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(epc) || func_no >= epc->max_functions || > + (epf_bar->barno == BAR_5 && > + epf_bar->flags & PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64)) > return; > > if (!epc->ops->clear_bar) >
