Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH V6] ns16550: Add support for UART present in Broadcom TruManage capable NetXtreme chips

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 02.12.13 at 19:32, Aravind Gopalakrishnan 
>>> <Aravind.Gopalakrishnan@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> @@ -434,7 +477,21 @@ static void __init ns16550_endboot(struct serial_port 
> *port)
>      struct ns16550 *uart = port->uart;
>  
>      if ( uart->remapped_io_base )
> +    {
> +        if ( uart->enable_ro ) {
> +            if ( rangeset_add_range(mmio_ro_ranges,
> +                                    uart->io_base,
> +                                    uart->io_base + uart->io_size - 1) )
> +               WARN();
> +
> +            if ( pci_ro_device(0, uart->ps_bdf[0], 
> +                               PCI_DEVFN(uart->ps_bdf[1], uart->ps_bdf[2])) )
> +                WARN();
> +

Stray blank line.

Also, for neither of the two WARN()s above the resulting stack trace
is really meaningful. A simple printk() would therefore suffice.

But, more importantly, did you overlook the use of pci_hide_device()
in ns16550_init_postirq(): The hiding should be done in one place.
And with pci_ro_device() implicitly hiding the device, you should
probably make sure you call just one of the two.

> +                        /* 
> +                         * Set enable_ro flag to 1 to
> +                         * make device and MMIO region read only
> +                         */
> +                        uart->enable_ro = 1;
> +                        break;

So in the comment with the field declaration you say this is
optional, as if the user had a choice. Since the selection is made
internally, I don't think you should comment it that way.

Furthermore, with the way you use it the field should clearly be
bool_t.

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel