Received: by 2002:a25:1506:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id 6csp1971156ybv; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 06:35:49 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqynOiTAP3IcEdO5PKP3+CdcRH2Oigj+H8AIy75YTdMrdmu7t4aA/zL+Xg/cO5fZ+Bz5BudU X-Received: by 2002:aca:53c6:: with SMTP id h189mr2231143oib.11.1582295749319; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 06:35:49 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1582295749; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=K0wke2B2m398qacXD9ub1Fmc0henwdsbpnyBFxYdfp8BVJ+bPAebRumLhxS80aZtv0 w+peYITELH8gX0bpG9+ug3nmLyr81VGZBa80EnJjbObKPPZo28/mpk6kHJP4WQVh1fVm D0gs1LM8bseDDanx2Wrc7ixEAu3PDORsArUKoe72N5Ts4vQ0UMfe1tZIBF/mOWqG1RLY +zrb1FAK/d6F9q4tbUVYLGUlVMOQUxBF5ExnkR2BDCu7CL/GLs1lkCI1YQKkG8XvwS5c gGGGzAqX27kcGzP+4HEWF+qJnyfM3S8EaNh8jmBfpKvii1Phg4Z5ZZOUwCYr52cVacz8 9tVw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:user-agent:in-reply-to :content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc :to:from:date; bh=xEUV67HsK95EE+v6vD1z2gR2yNdVNNUUzBWG+QD6mQQ=; b=HrBEVK2YBcX5LeeDCdMxB+rK1MLbwqhC9nDkuXX6gZydBsvJfQq95wlxwgjLKLQGyc +rBnIPNvN60n2jEx5wKkCXBSOeBouuhXNK8oATUwOWQ5dJA45IFv1lj4sxdEk2LFCLBS D7L6E4hAAIR440pmwTGmSrbtJYm9yqROGjnvskl+3Xx3og0H+AJA0q/LkHS8AuhpZhp4 iUNLwJ0z3dnKCE3lg9+tAdPwF+yP5ZagZMx7GjPf9KYL7D/OF6BXjwW8JjSnqNi4Abef bt0zma9zQYhEth4bsfqLs6Wz78Ne7X8ALhe66gTCS4+2/Cda9jJHFaIB3AIGcLcyO4+c lhOw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id z26si835744oid.247.2020.02.21.06.35.36; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 06:35:49 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728792AbgBUOf3 (ORCPT + 99 others); Fri, 21 Feb 2020 09:35:29 -0500 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]:40708 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727096AbgBUOf3 (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Feb 2020 09:35:29 -0500 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DFE81FB; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 06:35:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from e121166-lin.cambridge.arm.com (e121166-lin.cambridge.arm.com [10.1.196.255]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 553413F703; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 06:35:27 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 14:35:25 +0000 From: Lorenzo Pieralisi To: Marc Gonzalez Cc: Bjorn Andersson , Stanimir Varbanov , Andrew Murray , Bjorn Helgaas , linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] PCI: qcom: Fix the fixup of PCI_VENDOR_ID_QCOM Message-ID: <20200221143525.GC15440@e121166-lin.cambridge.arm.com> References: <20191227012717.78965-1-bjorn.andersson@linaro.org> <9e5ee7e8-aa63-e82c-8135-acc77b476c87@mm-sol.com> <38acf5fc-85aa-7090-e666-97a1281e9905@free.fr> <20191229024547.GH3755841@builder> <9c7d69cc-29e7-07c5-1e93-e9fdadf370a6@free.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <9c7d69cc-29e7-07c5-1e93-e9fdadf370a6@free.fr> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 09:25:28PM +0100, Marc Gonzalez wrote: > On 29/12/2019 03:45, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > > > On Sat 28 Dec 07:41 PST 2019, Marc Gonzalez wrote: > > > >> On 27/12/2019 09:51, Stanimir Varbanov wrote: > >> > >>> On 12/27/19 3:27 AM, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > >>> > >>>> There exists non-bridge PCIe devices with PCI_VENDOR_ID_QCOM, so limit > >>>> the fixup to only affect the relevant PCIe bridges. > >>>> > >>>> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org > >>>> Signed-off-by: Bjorn Andersson > >>>> --- > >>>> > >>>> Stan, I picked up all the suggested device id's from the previous thread and > >>>> added 0x1000 for QCS404. I looked at creating platform specific defines in > >>>> pci_ids.h, but SDM845 has both 106 and 107... Please let me know if you would > >>>> prefer that I do this anyway. > >>> > >>> Looks good, > >>> > >>> Acked-by: Stanimir Varbanov > >>> > >>>> drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom.c | 8 +++++++- > >>>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > >>>> > >>>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom.c b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom.c > >>>> index 5ea527a6bd9f..138e1a2d21cc 100644 > >>>> --- a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom.c > >>>> +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom.c > >>>> @@ -1439,7 +1439,13 @@ static void qcom_fixup_class(struct pci_dev *dev) > >>>> { > >>>> dev->class = PCI_CLASS_BRIDGE_PCI << 8; > >>>> } > >>>> -DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_EARLY(PCI_VENDOR_ID_QCOM, PCI_ANY_ID, qcom_fixup_class); > >>>> +DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_EARLY(PCI_VENDOR_ID_QCOM, 0x0101, qcom_fixup_class); > >>>> +DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_EARLY(PCI_VENDOR_ID_QCOM, 0x0104, qcom_fixup_class); > >>>> +DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_EARLY(PCI_VENDOR_ID_QCOM, 0x0106, qcom_fixup_class); > >>>> +DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_EARLY(PCI_VENDOR_ID_QCOM, 0x0107, qcom_fixup_class); > >>>> +DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_EARLY(PCI_VENDOR_ID_QCOM, 0x0302, qcom_fixup_class); > >>>> +DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_EARLY(PCI_VENDOR_ID_QCOM, 0x1000, qcom_fixup_class); > >>>> +DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_EARLY(PCI_VENDOR_ID_QCOM, 0x1001, qcom_fixup_class); > >> > >> Hrmmm... still not CCed on the patch, > > > > You are Cc'ed on the patch, but as usual your mail server responds "451 > > too many errors from your ip" and throw my emails away. > > > >> and still don't think the fixup is required(?) for 0x106 and 0x107. > >> > > > > I re-read your reply in my v1 thread. So we know that 0x104 doesn't need > > the fixup, so presumably only 0x101 needs the fixup? > > I apologize for the tone of my reply. I did not mean to sound > so snarky. > > All I can say is that, if I remember correctly, the fixup was > not necessary on apq8098 (0x0105) and it was probably not > required on msm8996 and sdm845. For older platforms, all bets > are off. How are we proceeding with this patch then ? Thanks, Lorenzo