On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 5:55 AM Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 11:36 AM Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Alistair, > > > > On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 11:14 AM Alistair Francis <alistai...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 1:52 AM Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > The largest pci bus number should be calculated from ECAM size, > > > > instead of its base address. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com> > > > > > > This seems ok, can you maybe explain what this fixes? > > > > > > > The logic is wrong, as the commit message said. With current wrong > > logic, the largest pci bus number encoded in "bus-ranges" property was > > wrongly set to 0x2ff in this case. Per pci spec, the bus number should > > not exceed 0xff. > > > > Ping?
Reviewed-by: Alistair Francis <alistair.fran...@wdc.com> Alistair
