Hello Jonathan,

Thank you for the review!  Also, apologies for late reply.

On 20-08-28 10:08:43, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
[...]

Might potentially be worth tidying up the masks as well?
Or potentially drop them given I suspect that there are no cases
in which the mask is actually doing anything...

Just to confirm - you have the following constants in mind?

drivers/pci/controller/pcie-rockchip.h:

#define PCIE_ECAM_BUS(x)	(((x) & 0xff) << 20)
#define PCIE_ECAM_DEV(x)	(((x) & 0x1f) << 15)
#define PCIE_ECAM_FUNC(x)	(((x) & 0x7) << 12)

drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-al.c:

#define PCIE_ECAM_DEVFN(x)	(((x) & 0xff) << 12)

I can move PCIE_ECAM_BUS, PCIE_ECAM_DEV and PCIE_ECAM_FUNC (as
PCIE_ECAM_FUN) to the linux/pci-ecam.h file, as these seem useful, but
without the masks, and then update other files to use these.  We could
then leverage these, for example:

 	pci_base_addr = (void __iomem *)((uintptr_t)pp->va_cfg0_base +
-					 (busnr_ecam << 20) +
-					 PCIE_ECAM_DEVFN(devfn));
+					 PCIE_ECAM_BUS(busnr_ecam) +
+					 PCIE_ECAM_FUN(devfn));

What do you think?  Bjorn, would that be acceptable?

Krzysztof

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel