[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAE9FiQUTnG_fw9Y5VkwO7BmgYeJqQOKAyDh4JESOkOuOvjMThQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 13:34:42 -0700
From: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
To: Khalid Aziz <khalid.aziz@...cle.com>
Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Wei Yang <weiyang@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, TJ <linux@....tj>,
Yijing Wang <wangyijing@...wei.com>,
"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 02/60] sparc/PCI: Use correct bus address to resource offset
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Khalid Aziz <khalid.aziz@...cle.com> wrote:
>> I don't want to argue about pci_resource_to_user() right now, so I
>> guess you can just panic if the mem64 offset is different from the
>> mem32 offset. But you should at least add a comment about why you're
>> doing that. Otherwise it looks like you were just lazy.
I had one version for that, but it has big change to __pci_mmap_make_offset_bus
for making pci_mmap_resource() working.
And took it for granted that MEM/MEM64 should have same offet.
>
>
> I just hit this condition on a sparc platform where mem32 offset != mem64
> offset. We need to handle this case, and not just call panic. I had not seen
> this on 5 platforms and another 3 ldoms I had tested this on when I tested
> this code earlier. I have sent panic log to Yinghai separately.
Did you get test result with updated patch2 and patch3?
Thanks
Yinghai
--
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