On Fri, Aug 01, 2025 at 06:06:16PM GMT, Hans Zhang wrote:
>
>
> On 2025/8/1 17:47, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> > EXTERNAL EMAIL
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 01, 2025 at 05:25:51PM GMT, Hans Zhang wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 2025/8/1 16:18, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> > > > EXTERNAL EMAIL
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 09:01:17PM GMT, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2025, at 20:39, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 07:38:58PM +0200, Gerd Bayer wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - if (size == 1)
> > > > > > > - return pci_bus_read_config_byte(bus, devfn, where, (u8 *)val);
> > > > > > > - else if (size == 2)
> > > > > > > - return pci_bus_read_config_word(bus, devfn, where, (u16 *)val);
> > > > > > > - else if (size == 4)
> > > > > > > - return pci_bus_read_config_dword(bus, devfn, where, val);
> > > > > > > - else
> > > > > > > - return PCIBIOS_BAD_REGISTER_NUMBER;
> > > > > > > + if (size == 1) {
> > > > > > > + rc = pci_bus_read_config_byte(bus, devfn, where, (u8 *)val);
> > > > > > > +#if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_CPU_BIG_ENDIAN))
> > > > > > > + *val = ((*val >> 24) & 0xff);
> > > > > > > +#endif
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yeah, this is all pretty ugly. Obviously the previous code in
> > > > > > __pci_find_next_cap_ttl() didn't need this. My guess is that was
> > > > > > because the destination for the read data was always the correct type
> > > > > > (u8/u16/u32), but here we always use a u32 and cast it to the
> > > > > > appropriate type. Maybe we can use the correct types here instead of
> > > > > > the casts?
> > > > >
> > > > > Agreed, the casts here just add more potential for bugs.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ack. Missed the obvious issue during review.
> > > >
> > > > > The pci_bus_read_config() interface itself may have been a
> > > > > mistake, can't the callers just use the underlying helpers
> > > > > directly?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > They can! Since the callers of this API is mostly the macros, we can easily
> > > > implement the logic to call relevant accessors based on the requested size.
> > > >
> > > > Hans, could you please respin the series based the feedback since the series is
> > > > dropped for 6.17.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Dear all,
> > >
> > > I am once again deeply sorry for the problems that occurred in this series.
> > > I only test pulling the ARM platform.
> > >
> > > Thank you very much, Gerd, for reporting the problem.
> > >
> > > Thank you all for your discussions and suggestions for revision.
> > >
> > > Hi Mani,
> > >
> > > Geert provided a solution. My patch based on this is as follows. Please
> > > check if there are any problems.
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/CAMuHMdVwFeV46oCid_sMHjXfP+yyGTpBfs9t3uaa=wRxNcSOAQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> > >
> > > Also, please ask Gerd to help test whether it works properly. Thank you very
> > > much.
> > >
> > >
> > > If there are no issues, am I sending the new version? Can this series of
> > > pacth 0001 be directly replaced?
> > >
> >
> > What benefit does this helper provide if it simply invokes the accessors based
> > on the requested size? IMO, the API should not return 'int' sized value if the
> > caller has explicitly requested to read variable size from config space.
> >
>
> Dear Mani,
>
> This newly added macro definition PCI_FIND_NEXT_CAP is derived from
> __pci_find_next_cap_ttl. Another newly added macro definition,
> PCI_FIND_NEXT_EXT_CAP, is derived from pci_find_next_ext_capability. The
> first one has no return value judgment, while the second one has a judgment
> return value. So, pci_bus_read_config is defined as having an int return
> value.
>
Sorry, my previous reply was not clear. I was opposed to returning 'u32 *val'
for a variable 'size' value. The API should only return 'val' of 'size' ie. if
size is 1, it should return 'u8 *val' and so on. It finally breaks down to
calling the underlying accessors. So I don't see a value in having this API.
- Mani
--
மணிவண்ணன் சதாசிவம்
