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,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=unavailable 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 A1BB1C282C2 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 13:45:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71639218D3 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 13:45:32 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ti.com header.i=@ti.com header.b="ImtpWPij" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2388390AbfBMNpY (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Feb 2019 08:45:24 -0500 Received: from lelv0142.ext.ti.com ([198.47.23.249]:38258 "EHLO lelv0142.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1732629AbfBMNpY (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Feb 2019 08:45:24 -0500 Received: from fllv0035.itg.ti.com ([10.64.41.0]) by lelv0142.ext.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id x1DDj5N8064476; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 07:45:05 -0600 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ti.com; s=ti-com-17Q1; t=1550065505; bh=A8Uk9Ow8WV66Xu29GZ7RXEbi+FTpl5lwZKZ+E0PdRIs=; h=Subject:From:To:CC:References:Date:In-Reply-To; b=ImtpWPijkMJtL20oiodNPBspA9yNxbn6Vmo5n8tX+z6elaQN4x1UqLDek/b4jATGb IRoSt+ODlifceMIzuomh+rnClmSq2+egcWF96VpMpvvKqRYfK4wb6fItXE19RJK01f eE6llId7laicniw3Lu5iujkqHjRiKv1gV4BphdWU= Received: from DFLE104.ent.ti.com (dfle104.ent.ti.com [10.64.6.25]) by fllv0035.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x1DDj4Fb036882 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 13 Feb 2019 07:45:04 -0600 Received: from DFLE106.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.27) by DFLE104.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.25) 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 07:45:03 -0600 Received: from dflp33.itg.ti.com (10.64.6.16) by DFLE106.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.27) 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 07:45:03 -0600 Received: from [172.24.190.233] (ileax41-snat.itg.ti.com [10.172.224.153]) by dflp33.itg.ti.com (8.14.3/8.13.8) with ESMTP id x1DDixdq024064; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 07:45:00 -0600 Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/15] PCI: pci-epf-test: Use pci_epc_get_features to get EPC features From: Kishon Vijay Abraham I 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> <6d72cfdf-97a7-4aab-f746-d0e545431ea2@ti.com> Message-ID: Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 19:14:24 +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: <6d72cfdf-97a7-4aab-f746-d0e545431ea2@ti.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 13/02/19 7:08 PM, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote: > 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. Btw I found some issues in the v1 of this series, so I posted v2 [1]. Please review that. Thanks Kishon [1] -> https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/1/14/288 > > Thanks > Kishon >