From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4E8AC282C2 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 13:39:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5C382082F for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 13:39:18 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ti.com header.i=@ti.com header.b="mwM037gh" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728298AbfBMNjS (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Feb 2019 08:39:18 -0500 Received: from lelv0143.ext.ti.com ([198.47.23.248]:41256 "EHLO lelv0143.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726143AbfBMNjR (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Feb 2019 08:39:17 -0500 Received: from lelv0266.itg.ti.com ([10.180.67.225]) by lelv0143.ext.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id x1DDcwDj076824; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 07:38:58 -0600 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ti.com; s=ti-com-17Q1; t=1550065138; bh=mxXk2O4VevzOIuPsK6B+Tj6ssen4OM6bD0AJ0l4uyvU=; h=Subject:To:CC:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=mwM037ghDtGS4kGeSBPtQFfVNcoiQptZP2abyMzxJ/YzX1QYuvNHfMgjDsJi+E3+9 n8ldPAkOI0K9qWQinAXP+M1vkae+JOiMFJuavX4jhcaRkGRgIQpdHIOCeKKs2xQRnI 4hXVNI7a0rKRqizHxm79VkE5bci1MiTOzbufrnJE= Received: from DFLE108.ent.ti.com (dfle108.ent.ti.com [10.64.6.29]) by lelv0266.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x1DDcw7J112043 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 13 Feb 2019 07:38:58 -0600 Received: from DFLE109.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.30) by DFLE108.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.29) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1591.10; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 07:38:58 -0600 Received: from dlep32.itg.ti.com (157.170.170.100) by DFLE109.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.30) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA) id 15.1.1591.10 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 07:38:58 -0600 Received: from [172.24.190.233] (ileax41-snat.itg.ti.com [10.172.224.153]) by dlep32.itg.ti.com (8.14.3/8.13.8) with ESMTP id x1DDcr1U032003; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 07:38:54 -0600 Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/15] PCI: pci-epf-test: Use pci_epc_get_features to get EPC features To: Lorenzo Pieralisi CC: Bjorn Helgaas , Gustavo Pimentel , Alan Douglas , Shawn Lin , Jingoo Han , Heiko Stuebner , Cyrille Pitchen , Jia-Ju Bai , , , , , References: <20190107064148.10152-1-kishon@ti.com> <20190107064148.10152-12-kishon@ti.com> <20190212150718.GA28306@e107981-ln.cambridge.arm.com> From: Kishon Vijay Abraham I Message-ID: <6d72cfdf-97a7-4aab-f746-d0e545431ea2@ti.com> Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 19:08:18 +0530 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190212150718.GA28306@e107981-ln.cambridge.arm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-EXCLAIMER-MD-CONFIG: e1e8a2fd-e40a-4ac6-ac9b-f7e9cc9ee180 Sender: linux-pci-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org Hi Lorenzo, On 12/02/19 8:37 PM, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 12:11:44PM +0530, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote: > > [...] > >> static int pci_epf_test_bind(struct pci_epf *epf) >> { >> int ret; >> struct pci_epf_test *epf_test = epf_get_drvdata(epf); >> struct pci_epf_header *header = epf->header; >> + const struct pci_epc_features *epc_features; >> + enum pci_barno test_reg_bar = BAR_0; >> struct pci_epc *epc = epf->epc; >> struct device *dev = &epf->dev; >> + bool linkup_notifier = false; >> + bool msix_capable = false; >> + bool msi_capable = true; >> >> if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!epc)) >> return -EINVAL; >> >> - if (epc->features & EPC_FEATURE_NO_LINKUP_NOTIFIER) >> - epf_test->linkup_notifier = false; >> - else >> - epf_test->linkup_notifier = true; >> - >> - epf_test->msix_available = epc->features & EPC_FEATURE_MSIX_AVAILABLE; >> + epc_features = pci_epc_get_features(epc, epf->func_no); > > I think it would work out better if struct pci_epc_features was > allocated in the caller (stack) and pci_epc_get_features() take a > pointer parameter to it rather than the callee and the callee would just > have to fill it out, this also removes data in the driver that is not > really useful. > > Is there any other reason behind the current design choice ? Some drivers are used by multiple platforms each with different features. In such cases it's cleaner to have separate epc_feature table for each platform. I think the driver should maintain some sort of data to even populate pci_epc_features allocated by EP function driver. Thanks Kishon