Chaitra,

A few comments:

> @@ -426,7 +427,7 @@ static void _clone_sg_entries(struct MPT3SAS_ADAPTER *ioc,
>                       dst_addr_phys = _base_get_chain_phys(ioc,
>                                               smid, sge_chain_count);
>                       WARN_ON(dst_addr_phys > U32_MAX);
> -                     sgel->Address = (u32)dst_addr_phys;
> +                     sgel->Address = cpu_to_le32((u32)dst_addr_phys);

I tend to prefer lower_32_bits() but that's your choice.

> @@ -3040,8 +3047,9 @@ mpt3sas_base_map_resources(struct MPT3SAS_ADAPTER *ioc)
>               }
>  
>               for (i = 0; i < ioc->combined_reply_index_count; i++) {
> -                     ioc->replyPostRegisterIndex[i] = (resource_size_t *)
> -                          ((u8 *)&ioc->chip->Doorbell +
> +                     ioc->replyPostRegisterIndex[i] =
> +                         (volatile void __iomem *)
> +                          ((u8 __force *)&ioc->chip->Doorbell +
>                            MPI25_SUP_REPLY_POST_HOST_INDEX_OFFSET +
>                            (i * MPT3_SUP_REPLY_POST_HOST_INDEX_REG_OFFSET));

Do you really need volatile here? The existing resource_size_t didn't
imply volatile.

Why the double type casts? You've already changed replyPostRegisterIndex
to be 'volatile void __iomem **' in the header file. So why not:

                        ioc->replyPostRegisterIndex[i] =
                                &ioc->chip->Doorbell +
                                MPI25_SUP_REPLY_POST_HOST_INDEX_OFFSET +
                                i * MPT3_SUP_REPLY_POST_HOST_INDEX_REG_OFFSET;

Also looks like ioc->reply_post_host_index handling a few lines further
down could lose the type casts.

> @@ -3386,7 +3394,7 @@ _base_put_smid_mpi_ep_scsi_io(struct MPT3SAS_ADAPTER 
> *ioc, u16 smid, u16 handle)
>       __le32 *mfp = (__le32 *)mpt3sas_base_get_msg_frame(ioc, smid);
>  
>       _clone_sg_entries(ioc, (void *) mfp, smid);
> -     mpi_req_iomem = (void *)ioc->chip +
> +     mpi_req_iomem = (void __force *)ioc->chip +
>                       MPI_FRAME_START_OFFSET + (smid * ioc->request_sz);
>       _base_clone_mpi_to_sys_mem(mpi_req_iomem, (void *)mfp,
>                                       ioc->request_sz);

Wouldn't it be better to add __iomem to the definition of mpi_req_iomem?

> +             nvme_encap_request->ErrorResponseBaseAddress =
> +                 cpu_to_le64(ioc->sense_dma & 0xFFFFFFFF00000000UL);

upper_32_bits()?

-- 
Martin K. Petersen      Oracle Linux Engineering

Reply via email to