Hi Greg, > -----Original Message----- > From: Greg KH <[email protected]> > Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2021 5:27 PM > To: Thokala, Srikanth <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; linux- > [email protected]; Derek Kiernan <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 09/34] misc: xlink-pcie: lh: Add PCIe EPF driver > for Local Host > > On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 11:48:29AM +0000, Thokala, Srikanth wrote: > > > > +{ > > > > + struct pci_epf_bar *epf_bar; > > > > + bool bar_fixed_64bit; > > > > + int ret, i; > > > > + > > > > + for (i = BAR_0; i <= BAR_5; i++) { > > > > + epf_bar = &epf->bar[i]; > > > > + bar_fixed_64bit = !!(epc_features->bar_fixed_64bit & (1 > << > > > i)); > > > > + if (bar_fixed_64bit) > > > > + epf_bar->flags |= PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64; > > > > + if (epc_features->bar_fixed_size[i]) > > > > + epf_bar->size = epc_features->bar_fixed_size[i]; > > > > + > > > > + if (i == BAR_2) { > > > > + ret = intel_xpcie_check_bar(epf, epf_bar, BAR_2, > > > > + BAR2_MIN_SIZE, > > > > + > > > > epc_features->reserved_bar); > > > > + if (ret) > > > > + return ret; > > > > + } > > > > + > > > > + if (i == BAR_4) { > > > > + ret = intel_xpcie_check_bar(epf, epf_bar, BAR_4, > > > > + BAR4_MIN_SIZE, > > > > + > > > > epc_features->reserved_bar); > > > > + if (ret) > > > > + return ret; > > > > + } > > > > > > Why do you need to check all of this? Where is the data coming from > > > that could be incorrect? > > > > PCI BAR attributes, as inputs, are coming from the PCIe controller > driver > > through PCIe End Point Framework. These checks are required to compare > the > > configuration this driver is expecting to the configuration coming from > > the PCIe controller driver. > > So why do you not trust that information coming from the caller? > Shouldn't it always be correct as it already is validated by that > in-kernel caller? Don't check for things you don't have to check for > because you control the code that calls this stuff.
Sure, I agree to your point. I will fix it in my next version. Thanks! Srikanth > > thanks, > > greg k-h
