Re: [PATCH] PCI: iproc: Set all 24 bits of PCI class code

From: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
Cc: "Pali Rohár" <pali@kernel.org>, "Ray Jui" <ray.jui@broadcom.com>,
	"Roman Bacik" <roman.bacik@broadcom.com>,
	"Rob Herring" <robh@kernel.org>,
	"Krzysztof Wilczyński" <kw@linux.com>,
	"Bjorn Helgaas" <bhelgaas@google.com>,
	bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI: iproc: Set all 24 bits of PCI class code
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2022 11:43:32 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220107114332.GA22419@lpieralisi> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220106180026.GA295674@bhelgaas>

On Thu, Jan 06, 2022 at 12:00:26PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 05, 2022 at 07:13:06PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > On Wednesday 05 January 2022 09:51:48 Ray Jui wrote:
> > > On 1/5/2022 1:35 AM, Pali Rohár wrote:
> 
> > > 2. I suppose 'PCI_CLASS_BRIDGE_PCI_NORMAL' is defined in some common PCI
> > > header in a separate patch as described in the commit message. Then how
> > > come these patches are not constructed with a patch series?
> > 
> > Yes, PCI_CLASS_BRIDGE_PCI_NORMAL is a new constant for common pci header
> > file defined in patch linked in commit message.
> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/20211220145140.31898-1-pali@kernel.org/
> > 
> > Originally I included this change in v1 of linked patch in December but
> > I realized that it does not match standard PCI config space (different
> > offset 0x43c vs 0x08 and also different shift 0x8 vs 0x0) and probably
> > there is something either incorrect or really non-standard. So later in
> > December I dropped iproc_pcie_check_link() change in v2 of the linked
> > patch where is introduced PCI_CLASS_BRIDGE_PCI_NORMAL and now sent new
> > change for iproc_pcie_check_link() separately.
> > 
> > Technically, linked patch in commit message is just extracting code into
> > the common macros without any functional changed. But change in this
> > iproc_pcie_check_link() has also functional change as now also lower 8
> > bits of class code are changed. So in my opinion this patch should be
> > really separate of linked patch.
> > 
> > I hope that Lorenzo and Bjorn take patches in correct order...
> 
> If patches are not sent together in a series, you can't assume
> anything about the order they'll be applied in.  Adding a note about
> "this patch depends patch X" helps a little but adds a fair amount of
> friction to the process.

Indeed, more so given that the dependency requires an ACK from other
maintainers - I certainly can't pull this patch as-is.

Lorenzo