From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964879AbdCJMaZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Mar 2017 07:30:25 -0500 Received: from smtprelay.synopsys.com ([198.182.47.9]:50792 "EHLO smtprelay.synopsys.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S935512AbdCJMaW (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Mar 2017 07:30:22 -0500 Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v3 4/7] PCI: dwc: all: Modify dbi accessors to take dbi_base as argument To: Kishon Vijay Abraham I , Niklas Cassel , Bjorn Helgaas , Joao Pinto , , , , References: <1489041545-15730-1-git-send-email-kishon@ti.com> <1489041545-15730-5-git-send-email-kishon@ti.com> <4e13580d-2625-5eed-bcbc-2ffd7493b073@axis.com> <595fab62-fb7a-888a-f898-7b59030585f1@axis.com> <58C28FCC.4070100@ti.com> CC: , Jingoo Han , Richard Zhu , Lucas Stach , "Murali Karicheri" , Thomas Petazzoni , Jesper Nilsson , Zhou Wang , Gabriele Paoloni From: Joao Pinto Message-ID: Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 12:30:07 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <58C28FCC.4070100@ti.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: [10.107.19.101] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Ās 11:36 AM de 3/10/2017, Kishon Vijay Abraham I escreveu: > Hi, > > On Thursday 09 March 2017 08:35 PM, Niklas Cassel wrote: >> >> >> On 03/09/2017 03:48 PM, Niklas Cassel wrote: >>> On 03/09/2017 07:39 AM, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote: >>>> dwc has 2 dbi address space labeled dbics and dbics2. The existing >>>> helper to access dbi address space can access only dbics. However >>>> dbics2 has to be accessed for programming the BAR registers in the >>>> case of EP mode. This is in preparation for adding EP mode support >>>> to dwc driver. >>> Hello Kishon >>> >>> I don't really like the idea of adding an extra argument to every existing read/write. >>> Will not a read/write using dbi2 be quite uncommon compared to a read/write >>> using dbi? >>> >>> How about something like this: >>> >>> void __dw_pcie_writel(struct dw_pcie *pci, void __iomem *base, u32 reg, u32 val) >>> { >>> if (pci->ops->writel_dbi) >>> pci->ops->writel_dbi(pci, base, reg, val); >>> else >>> writel(val, base + reg); >>> } >>> >>> #define dw_pcie_writel_dbi(pci, reg, val) __dw_pcie_writel(pci, pci->dbi_base, reg, val) >>> #define dw_pcie_writel_dbi2(pci, reg, val) __dw_pcie_writel(pci, pci->dbi_base2, reg, val) >> >> Perhaps make dw_pcie_writel_dbi2 a function rather than a define, >> so we can return an error if pci->dbi_base2 == NULL. > > Should we return an error? We don't return error for dbi_base either. I think > it should be sufficient to return errors while populating dbi_base or > dbi_base2. Otherwise it's a bug and should result in abort. Joao? I agree with Kishon. Thanks, Joao > > Thanks > Kishon >