lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <fbb19171-5318-70c5-d6fa-9a405b5c8db4@ti.com> Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2018 11:09:37 +0530 From: Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com> To: Niklas Cassel <nks@...wful.org> CC: Niklas Cassel <niklas.cassel@...s.com>, <cyrille.pitchen@...e-electrons.com>, Jingoo Han <jingoohan1@...il.com>, Joao Pinto <Joao.Pinto@...opsys.com>, Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, Niklas Cassel <niklass@...s.com>, <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 06/12] PCI: designware-ep: Make dw_pcie_ep_set_bar() handle 64-bit BARs properly On Tuesday 03 April 2018 01:07 AM, Niklas Cassel wrote: > On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 03:17:11PM +0530, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Wednesday 28 March 2018 05:20 PM, Niklas Cassel wrote: >>> Since a 64-bit BAR consists of a BAR pair, we need to write to both >>> BARs in the BAR pair to setup the BAR properly. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Niklas Cassel <niklas.cassel@...s.com> >>> --- >>> drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-designware-ep.c | 11 +++++++++-- >>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-designware-ep.c b/drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-designware-ep.c >>> index 5a0bb53c795c..571b90f88d84 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-designware-ep.c >>> +++ b/drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-designware-ep.c >>> @@ -138,8 +138,15 @@ static int dw_pcie_ep_set_bar(struct pci_epc *epc, u8 func_no, >>> return ret; >>> >>> dw_pcie_dbi_ro_wr_en(pci); >>> - dw_pcie_writel_dbi2(pci, reg, size - 1); >>> - dw_pcie_writel_dbi(pci, reg, flags); >>> + if (flags & PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64) { >>> + dw_pcie_writel_dbi2(pci, reg, lower_32_bits(size - 1)); >>> + dw_pcie_writel_dbi(pci, reg, flags); >>> + dw_pcie_writel_dbi2(pci, reg + 4, upper_32_bits(size - 1)); >>> + dw_pcie_writel_dbi(pci, reg + 4, 0); >>> + } else { >>> + dw_pcie_writel_dbi2(pci, reg, size - 1); >>> + dw_pcie_writel_dbi(pci, reg, flags); >>> + } >> >> >> I think this should work too? >> dw_pcie_writel_dbi2(pci, reg, lower_32_bits(size - 1)); >> dw_pcie_writel_dbi(pci, reg, flags); >> >> if (flags & PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64) { >> dw_pcie_writel_dbi2(pci, reg + 4, upper_32_bits(size - 1)); >> dw_pcie_writel_dbi(pci, reg + 4, 0); >> } >> > > Hello Kishon, > > I agree, your suggestion is more neat. > > > Kishon, please tell me if you insist that the long if-statement > in pci_epc_set_bar() should be split, since there are 5 different > conditions. Because imho, having 5 succeeding if-statements isn't I'm okay as it is as well if Lorenzo/Bjorn is also fine with it. Thanks Kishon
Powered by blists - more mailing lists