Re: [Patch] Janitorial cleanup of GET_INDEX macro in arch/i386/pci/fixup.c

[Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>]

On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 01:13:39PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Greg KH wrote:
> >On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 03:19:11PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>On Mon, 27 Jun 2005, Neil Horman wrote:
> >>
> >>>Patch to clean up the implementation of the GET_INDEX macro in the i386 
> >>>pci
> >>>fixup code so that it uses the PCI_DEVFN macro, rather than 
> >>>re-implements it.
> >>
> >>This looks wrong:
> >>
> >>
> >>>-#define GET_INDEX(a, b) ((((a) - PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_MCH_PA) << 3) + 
> >>>((b) & 7))
> >>>+#define GET_INDEX(a, b) PCI_DEVFN((a - PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_MCH_PA),b)
> >>
> >>that first argument looks like it has parentheses at the wrong place, it 
> >>should be
> >>
> >>	(a) - PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_MCH_PA
> >>
> >>rather than
> >>
> >>	(a - PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_MCH_PA)
> >>
> >>methinks.
> >>
> >>Other than that... Greg?
> >
> >
> >I'd like to say yes, but I'll get an ack by the pci express people from
> >Intel first (PCI_DEVFN masks off bits that might be needed here, don't
> >really know...)  Also, this is only used for an array index, not a
> >pci devfn memory access (look at how it is used in the code...)
> >
> >I'll put it in my tree for now, and let it get testing, I would not
> >recommend it for yours just yet.
> 
> Please let me know, as I suggested this patch to Neil.
> 
> It sure seems like the code wants a real PCI devfn, even though it is 
> obviously doing a table index.
> 
> Comments?

I told Andrew to drop the patch, as the code does not want a real PCI devfn.

thanks,

greg k-h
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/