[PATCH 2/2] PCI: iproc: add bcma pcie driver

[Ray Jui]

Hi Rafal,

On 5/12/2015 11:27 PM, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
> On 12 May 2015 at 23:23, Hauke Mehrtens <hauke at hauke-m.de> wrote:
>> This driver adds support for the PCIe 2.0 controller found on the bcma
>> bus. This controller can be found on (mostly) all Broadcom BCM470X /
>> BCM5301X ARM SoCs.
>>
>> The driver found in the Broadcom SDK does some more stuff, like setting
>> up some DMA memory areas, chaining MPS and MRRS to 512 and also some
>> PHY changes like "improving" the PCIe jitter and doing some special
>> initializations for the 3rd PCIe port.
>>
>> This was tested on a bcm4708 board with 2 PCIe ports and wireless cards
>> connected to them.
>>
>> PCI_DOMAINS is needed by this driver, because normally there is more
>> than one PCIe controller and without PCI_DOMAINS only the first
>> controller gets registered.
>> This controller gets 6 IRQs, the last one is trigged by all IRQ events.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Hauke Mehrtens <hauke at hauke-m.de>
> 
> Acked-by: Rafał Miłecki <zajec5 at gmail.com>
> 
> 
>> +static int iproc_pcie_bcma_probe(struct bcma_device *bdev)
>> +{
>> +       struct iproc_pcie *pcie;
>> +       LIST_HEAD(res);
>> +       struct resource res_mem;
>> +       int ret;
>> +
>> +       pcie = devm_kzalloc(&bdev->dev, sizeof(*pcie), GFP_KERNEL);
>> +       if (!pcie)
>> +               return -ENOMEM;
>> +
>> +       pcie->dev = &bdev->dev;
>> +       bcma_set_drvdata(bdev, pcie);
>> +
>> +       pcie->base = bdev->io_addr;
>> +
>> +       res_mem.start = bdev->addr_s[0];
>> +       res_mem.end = bdev->addr_s[0] + SZ_128M - 1;
>> +       res_mem.name = "PCIe MEM space";
>> +       res_mem.flags = IORESOURCE_MEM;
>> +       pci_add_resource(&res, &res_mem);
>> +
>> +       pcie->resources = &res;
>> +
>> +       pcie->map_irq = iproc_pcie_bcma_map_irq;
>> +
>> +       ret = iproc_pcie_setup(pcie);
> 
> I think I don't like this part of iproc design. It lefts
> pcie->resources pointing to some random memory after the setup/probe
> are done. Guess it should be a separated parameter or sth.
> 
> The patch is still OK, I just refer to generic iproc possible issue.
> 
Sorry Rafal, but could you please be more specific on this?

Thanks,

Ray