Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210924211139.3477-1-sergio.paracuellos@gmail.com>
 <20210924211139.3477-6-sergio.paracuellos@gmail.com> <CAK8P3a3SpuioCVBfQpHFGuNQoXG7g8w9VL+V8rYd8Q80Od89HA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMhs-H8jF10NpTgCP=_FEaBcedTN75b6MoyrEVrrayJEAdufwA@mail.gmail.com> <CAK8P3a0p0YwsiG8NgZGPxGp=GwTLXfEO=D=CY3TtmYwiDSuaXg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAK8P3a0p0YwsiG8NgZGPxGp=GwTLXfEO=D=CY3TtmYwiDSuaXg@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Sergio Paracuellos <sergio.paracuellos@gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 25 Sep 2021 22:16:57 +0200
Message-ID: <CAMhs-H9aSNF4qP1HUtwNkA9bhMzErN9jXnscNvbiWSY=kyce2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] MIPS: implement architecture dependent 'pci_remap_iospace()'
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc:     Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>,
        Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Liviu Dudau <Liviu.Dudau@arm.com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>,
        gregkh <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        "open list:BROADCOM NVRAM DRIVER" <linux-mips@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-pci <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-staging@lists.linux.dev, NeilBrown <neil@brown.name>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

Hi Arnd,

On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 9:34 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 8:10 PM Sergio Paracuellos
> <sergio.paracuellos@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > It might be good to check that res->start is zero here, otherwise
> > > the io_port_base would be off. That could happen if you ever have more
> > > than one bridge.
> >
> > Do you mean something like the following?
>
> Yes, exactly.
>
> > int pci_remap_iospace(const struct resource *res, phys_addr_t phys_addr)
> > {
> >     unsigned long vaddr;
> >     size_t size;
> >
> >     if (res->start != 0) {
> >          // Should I WARN_ONCE or just show an error/warning message??
> >          WARN_ONCE(1, "resource start must be zero\n");
> >          return -ENODEV;
> >    }
>
> I don't care if it's WARN(), WARN_ONCE() or pr_warn(). If we ever see the
> message, the system is not working and the person who caused the problem
> will figure it out.

Pretty clear, thanks. I will collect you Acked-by's and make this
change and send v3.

Best regards,
    Sergio Paracuellos
>
>         Arnd