From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5F9AC46460 for ; Fri, 24 May 2019 08:51:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E77D217F9 for ; Fri, 24 May 2019 08:51:07 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ti.com header.i=@ti.com header.b="QmK2v5jv" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2389739AbfEXIvG (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 May 2019 04:51:06 -0400 Received: from fllv0015.ext.ti.com ([198.47.19.141]:48556 "EHLO fllv0015.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2389612AbfEXIvG (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 May 2019 04:51:06 -0400 Received: from lelv0265.itg.ti.com ([10.180.67.224]) by fllv0015.ext.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id x4O8ovh5094264; Fri, 24 May 2019 03:50:57 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ti.com; s=ti-com-17Q1; t=1558687857; bh=Aje9IYjKWVDmlh2mOCB+vZPfc1Meqh7hIaNo9RIRcMs=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=QmK2v5jvRYSYeDLbuCGoHeyk2u7tDrXAVYJWkzMEHfwk+sbe2PIikuxmpzpO2thCX H/OydCpeq2HfxCpZJRxBjAEOUksuSCIe9E2rqTGB7k90WbtJpYzCyOVvuwPhaPXQDm zS0DNQTqcKxeBuATkwHI439JFkhJZTVCyAm1UDUE= Received: from DLEE113.ent.ti.com (dlee113.ent.ti.com [157.170.170.24]) by lelv0265.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x4O8ovUt048595 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 24 May 2019 03:50:57 -0500 Received: from DLEE114.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.25) by DLEE113.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.24) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1713.5; Fri, 24 May 2019 03:50:57 -0500 Received: from fllv0040.itg.ti.com (10.64.41.20) by DLEE114.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.25) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1713.5 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 24 May 2019 03:50:57 -0500 Received: from [172.24.190.233] (ileax41-snat.itg.ti.com [10.172.224.153]) by fllv0040.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id x4O8or34125751; Fri, 24 May 2019 03:50:54 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] PCI: endpoint: Skip odd BAR when skipping 64bit BAR To: Alan Mikhak , , , , , Palmer Dabbelt , Paul Walmsley , Bjorn Helgaas , , , References: <1558648540-14239-1-git-send-email-alan.mikhak@sifive.com> From: Kishon Vijay Abraham I Message-ID: Date: Fri, 24 May 2019 14:19:39 +0530 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-EXCLAIMER-MD-CONFIG: e1e8a2fd-e40a-4ac6-ac9b-f7e9cc9ee180 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, On 24/05/19 5:25 AM, Alan Mikhak wrote: > +Bjorn Helgaas, +Gustavo Pimentel, +Wen Yang, +Kangjie Lu > > On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 2:55 PM Alan Mikhak wrote: >> >> Always skip odd bar when skipping 64bit BARs in pci_epf_test_set_bar() >> and pci_epf_test_alloc_space(). >> >> Otherwise, pci_epf_test_set_bar() will call pci_epc_set_bar() on odd loop >> index when skipping reserved 64bit BAR. Moreover, pci_epf_test_alloc_space() >> will call pci_epf_alloc_space() on bind for odd loop index when BAR is 64bit >> but leaks on subsequent unbind by not calling pci_epf_free_space(). >> >> Signed-off-by: Alan Mikhak >> Reviewed-by: Paul Walmsley >> --- >> drivers/pci/endpoint/functions/pci-epf-test.c | 25 ++++++++++++------------- >> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/pci/endpoint/functions/pci-epf-test.c b/drivers/pci/endpoint/functions/pci-epf-test.c >> index 27806987e93b..96156a537922 100644 >> --- a/drivers/pci/endpoint/functions/pci-epf-test.c >> +++ b/drivers/pci/endpoint/functions/pci-epf-test.c >> @@ -389,7 +389,7 @@ static void pci_epf_test_unbind(struct pci_epf *epf) >> >> static int pci_epf_test_set_bar(struct pci_epf *epf) >> { >> - int bar; >> + int bar, add; >> int ret; >> struct pci_epf_bar *epf_bar; >> struct pci_epc *epc = epf->epc; >> @@ -400,8 +400,14 @@ static int pci_epf_test_set_bar(struct pci_epf *epf) >> >> epc_features = epf_test->epc_features; >> >> - for (bar = BAR_0; bar <= BAR_5; bar++) { >> + for (bar = BAR_0; bar <= BAR_5; bar += add) { >> epf_bar = &epf->bar[bar]; >> + /* >> + * pci_epc_set_bar() sets PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64 >> + * if the specific implementation required a 64-bit BAR, >> + * even if we only requested a 32-bit BAR. >> + */ set_bar shouldn't set PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64. If a platform supports only 64-bit BAR, that should be specified in epc_features bar_fixed_64bit member. Thanks Kishon