On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 02:48:19PM +0200, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 06:17:04PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > On 04/10/2018 05:28 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > >>> rcar_pcie_get_resources() is called while the device is
> > >>> runtime-enabled/resumed,
> > >>> pci_free_resource_list() is called while the device is runtime-disabled.
> > rcar_pcie_get_resources() is NOT a pair function for
> > pci_free_resource_list() . rcar_pcie_parse_request_of_pci_ranges() is a
> > pair function for pci_free_resource_list().
> > rcar_pcie_parse_request_of_pci_ranges() calls
> > of_pci_get_host_bridge_resources() internally, so every single function
> > called after successful call of rcar_pcie_parse_request_of_pci_ranges()
> > must call pci_free_resource_list().
> > Both of_pci_get_host_bridge_resources() and pci_free_resource_list() are
> > called with runtime PM disabled.
> > The naming of the functions is confusing though.
> thanks everyone for their efforts in preparing/reviewing this patch.
> It seems there are some differences of opinion on how best to handle the
> error paths but unlike earlier versions this one seems correct to me. If
> that turns out to be false we can address it. But I don't think its likely
> things will be enhanced by continuing this review.
> Lorenzo, please consider taking this patch in its current form.
I will as soon as we restart queueing patches for v4.18, thanks for