Hi Pavel,

Thank you for the review.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pavel Machek <pavel@denx.de>
> Sent: 21 October 2020 20:07
> To: Prabhakar Mahadev Lad <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com>
> Cc: cip-dev@lists.cip-project.org; Nobuhiro Iwamatsu <nobuhiro1.iwamatsu@toshiba.co.jp>; Pavel Machek <pavel@denx.de>; Biju Das
> <biju.das.jz@bp.renesas.com>
> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4.19.y-cip 38/50] PCI: rcar: Move shareable code to a common file
> 
> Hi!
> 
> > commit 78a0d7f2f5a31357bce68012d886507b4cf33598 upstream.
> >
> > Move shareable code to common file pcie-rcar.c and the #defines to
> > pcie-rcar.h so that the common code can be reused with endpoint driver.
> > There are no functional changes with this patch for the host controller
> > driver.
> 
> Whoa.
> 
> So... original patch _moved_ shared code to new place.
> 
> This version creates another copy of shared code, probably subtly
> different from the other one.
> 
> Is that good idea? Won't two copies cause problems depending on
> .config? Could we share code, as the mainline does?
> 
My main concern was this produces a big diff which would make it difficult for review. And CONFIG_PCIE_RCAR_HOST by default selects CONFIG_PCIE_RCAR which builds the host driver.
pcie-rcar.c is the same as mainline only that pcie-rcar-host.c is untouched here.

If you are OK ill post the similar changes to pcie-rcar-host.c as done in the actual upstream patch.

> Anyway, patches up to previous one -- [37/50] arm64: defconfig: Enable
> CONFIG_PCIE_RCAR_HOST look okay to me, so if you can send them as
> non-RFC version, I cal likely apply them.
> 
I shall get on posting the 2nd bunch of non-RFC.

Cheers,
Prabhakar

> Best regards,
> 								Pavel
> 
> --
> DENX Software Engineering GmbH,      Managing Director: Wolfgang Denk
> HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany