Re: [PATCH v6 7/7] xen/arm: do not use void pointer in pci_host_common_probe

[Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>]

On 18/11/2021 07:34, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
> Hi, Julien!
Hi,

> On 17.11.21 23:45, Julien Grall wrote:
> > Hi Oleksandr,
> >
> > On 05/11/2021 06:33, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
> > > From: Oleksandr Andrushchenko <oleksandr_andrushchenko@xxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > There is no reason to use void pointer while passing ECAM ops to the
> > > pci_host_common_probe function as it is anyway casted to struct pci_ecam_ops
> > > inside. For that reason remove the void pointer and pass struct pci_ecam_ops
> > > pointer as is.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Oleksandr Andrushchenko <oleksandr_andrushchenko@xxxxxxxx>
> > I was going to ack and push the patch. But then I couldn't apply the patch...
> >
> > > ---
> > > New in v4
> > > ---
> > >    xen/arch/arm/pci/ecam.c            | 4 ++--
> > >    xen/arch/arm/pci/pci-host-common.c | 6 ++----
> > >    xen/include/asm-arm/pci.h          | 5 +++--
> > >    3 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/pci/ecam.c b/xen/arch/arm/pci/ecam.c
> > > index 4f71b11c3057..6aeea12a68bf 100644
> > > --- a/xen/arch/arm/pci/ecam.c
> > > +++ b/xen/arch/arm/pci/ecam.c
> > > @@ -24,8 +24,8 @@ void __iomem *pci_ecam_map_bus(struct pci_host_bridge *bridge,
> > >                                   pci_sbdf_t sbdf, uint32_t where)
> > >    {
> > >        const struct pci_config_window *cfg = bridge->cfg;
> > > -    struct pci_ecam_ops *ops =
> > > -        container_of(bridge->ops, struct pci_ecam_ops, pci_ops);
> > > +    const struct pci_ecam_ops *ops =
> > > +        container_of(bridge->ops, const struct pci_ecam_ops, pci_ops);
> > >        unsigned int devfn_shift = ops->bus_shift - 8;
> > >        void __iomem *base;
> > >    diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/pci/pci-host-common.c 
> > > b/xen/arch/arm/pci/pci-host-common.c
> > > index 6af845ab9d6c..1aad664b213e 100644
> > > --- a/xen/arch/arm/pci/pci-host-common.c
> > > +++ b/xen/arch/arm/pci/pci-host-common.c
> > > @@ -194,15 +194,13 @@ static int pci_bus_find_domain_nr(struct dt_device_node 
> > > *dev)
> > >        return domain;
> > >    }
> > >    -int pci_host_common_probe(struct dt_device_node *dev, const void *data)
> > > +int pci_host_common_probe(struct dt_device_node *dev,
> > > +                          const struct pci_ecam_ops *ops)
> > >    {
> > >        struct pci_host_bridge *bridge;
> > >        struct pci_config_window *cfg;
> > > -    struct pci_ecam_ops *ops;
> > >        int err;
> > ... in staging, the code has an two additional lines here:
> >
> >      if ( dt_device_for_passthrough(dev) )
> >          return 0;
> >
> > Is this series relying on patch that are not yet upstreamed?
> Yes, I mistakenly had a patch below that I didn't want to upstream with
> this series, so this is why. Sorry about that.
> Frankly, I didn't expect patches to be merged from this series now as
> 1) I expect v7
We tend to merge patches in a different order, if there are no 
dependencies and would make sense without the rest of the series. This 
help reducing the size of the series.
> 2) I thought we won't push until the release
For Arm, Stefano and I have been created for-next/XX.YY (for this 
release the branch is for-next/4.17) to queue patches until the tree is 
re-opened for several releases.
> That being said: do you mind if I put your Acked-by in this patch, so
> it is ready for v7?
Sure. So long this is a simple rebase:

Acked-by: Julien Grall <jgrall@xxxxxxxxxx>

Cheers,

[1] 
https://xenbits.xen.org/gitweb/?p=people/julieng/xen-unstable.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/for-next/4.17
--
Julien Grall