[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140604210405.GA31230@obsidianresearch.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2014 15:04:05 -0600
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>
To: Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>
Cc: Vidya Sagar <vidyas@...dia.com>, linux@....linux.org.uk,
bhelgaas@...gle.com, wangyijing@...wei.com,
thierry.reding@...il.com, jason@...edaemon.net,
will.deacon@....com, swarren@...dia.com, kthota@...dia.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
sagar.tv@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: fix debug prints relevant to PCI devices
On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 01:29:14PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 06/04/2014 01:17 PM, Vidya Sagar wrote:
> > As per PCIe spec, fast back-to-back transactions feature
> > is not applicable to PCIe devices. Hence, do not print
> > that fast back-to-back trasactions are disabled when
> > there is a PCIe device found on the bus
>
> > @@ -298,6 +299,8 @@ void pcibios_fixup_bus(struct pci_bus *bus)
> > list_for_each_entry(dev, &bus->devices, bus_list) {
> > u16 status;
> >
> > + if (!has_pcie_dev)
> > + has_pcie_dev = pci_pcie_cap(dev);
>
> This sets the flag if any PCIe device is detected, even if regular PCI
> devices are also detected. I assume the two can be mixed on a bus if
> there's a bridge (although perhaps that would be separate buses, and
> child buses don't get traversed by this function?)
I like the concept, and the logic looks OK as is (though pci_is_pcie
is a better choice). The function is called on a bus number basis, and
it isn't physically possible to mix technology on a single bus number.
Jason
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists