On 9/5/25 10:36 AM, Niklas Cassel wrote:
On Fri, Sep 05, 2025 at 09:32:03AM +0200, Jerome Brunet wrote:
On Thu 04 Sep 2025 at 14:28, Niklas Cassel <cassel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I think this can be simplified to:
if (epc_features->bar[bar].type == BAR_FIXED)
test_bar_size = epc_features->bar[bar].fixed_size;
else
test_bar_size = bar_size[bar];
+1
It's what pci_epf_alloc_space() does too. so it makes sense but it also
means the side must stay aligned.
Not really, pci_epf_alloc_space() will give you 'fixed_size'
if you request size < fixed_size.
If you request more, it will give you an error.
If a rework is needed, maybe it would be better to get size from
pci_epf_alloc_space() instead of recomputing it ?
The pci-epf-test driver is just a test driver and we can use whatever
BAR size we want for each BAR.
However, I don't think that pci_epf_alloc_space() can always give us
a BAR size. Sure, for fixed_size BARs, there is only a single size
that is possible. But for Programmable and Resizable BARs, there are
many possible sizes, so which size should pci_epf_alloc_space() then
return?
And not all EPF drivers might be happy with an aribitrary BAR size
(which is the case for pci-epf-test), some EPF drivers might have
strict minimum sizes for a BAR.
So, I still think this proposal is the best thing we can do.
At least it appears that we only need to patch pci-epf-test.
In the meantime, I sent a tested V2, so it is on the list.
Thanks !
