From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Fabio Estevam <festevam@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 00:09:22 -0200
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 1/3] pci: Add error values definitions from the
	kernel
In-Reply-To: <CAEUhbmVC4U5iZdk76t9f9Pna5mNFGyLRSs3J81OEtHfPH3no3w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1452113598-32409-1-git-send-email-festevam@gmail.com>
 <CAEUhbmWijmsSLrzBXRxrCZPKrZcDn6Bw5U6gYW=-xctLqg9-aQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOMZO5AWvC3hAOqiyX-b0m5zmTA9R1ErOti4=v+ddF_+ndxDLg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEUhbmX_xYmVZWcJHFhd2tLTRELo8nEpUWpwLmva6xXfEMZjcQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOMZO5ChruMj=abNAUs3Jm2Mge3xZTfTmEXWOh6QBKS3p1wJFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEUhbmVC4U5iZdk76t9f9Pna5mNFGyLRSs3J81OEtHfPH3no3w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAOMZO5D8c-CUHM3X_cpvaabovd5SGM7zpzB9WtdtwbSAf7AQbg@mail.gmail.com>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

Hi Bin,

On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 10:46 PM, Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com> wrote:

> The pci_hose_read_config_byte_via_dword() and
> pci_hose_read_config_word_via_dword() only return -1 if the error
> number < 0. What if I call:
>
> u32 data;
> ret = pci_read_config_dword(dev, PCI_VENDOR_ID, &data);
>
> This will fail with error number 0x86, but if we do:
>
> u16 data;
> ret = pci_read_config_dword(dev, PCI_VENDOR_ID, &data);
>
> This will _not_ fail. This is inconsistent. You are just trying to
> workaround the 'pciinfo' command to make it output no error message.

Yes, I can see this inconsistency here, thanks. It also happens before my patch.

This inconsistency is gone if we do as you proposed earlier:

    ret = imx_pcie_addr_valid(d);
    if (ret) {
        *val = 0xffffffff;
        return 0;
    }

Do you still agree with it? If so, maybe you could send a patch for it?

Thanks