Re: [PATCH v18 02/20] PCI: Rename PCI_EPC_IRQ_LEGACY to PCI_EPC_IRQ_INTX

From: Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@gmail.com>
To: Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@kernel.org>
Cc: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>,
	Yoshihiro Shimoda <yoshihiro.shimoda.uh@renesas.com>,
	jingoohan1@gmail.com, gustavo.pimentel@synopsys.com,
	lpieralisi@kernel.org, robh+dt@kernel.org, kw@linux.com,
	bhelgaas@google.com, kishon@kernel.org,
	krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org, conor+dt@kernel.org,
	marek.vasut+renesas@gmail.com, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
	devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org,
	Manivannan Sadhasivam <mani@kernel.org>,
	Jesper Nilsson <jesper.nilsson@axis.com>,
	Tom Joseph <tjoseph@cadence.com>,
	Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@ti.com>,
	Richard Zhu <hongxing.zhu@nxp.com>,
	Lucas Stach <l.stach@pengutronix.de>,
	Shawn Guo <shawnguo@kernel.org>,
	Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>,
	Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@pengutronix.de>,
	Fabio Estevam <festevam@gmail.com>,
	NXP Linux Team <linux-imx@nxp.com>,
	Minghuan Lian <minghuan.Lian@nxp.com>,
	Mingkai Hu <mingkai.hu@nxp.com>, Roy Zang <roy.zang@nxp.com>,
	Srikanth Thokala <srikanth.thokala@intel.com>,
	Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
	Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com>,
	Kunihiko Hayashi <hayashi.kunihiko@socionext.com>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
	Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@rock-chips.com>,
	Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v18 02/20] PCI: Rename PCI_EPC_IRQ_LEGACY to PCI_EPC_IRQ_INTX
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2023 05:02:52 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <xza3xtnlfznjqmjjms3gee5rqbyubtuu4yu6glowmir3z25umr@dss3i2lbfbgc> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <dea62385-7f3a-9396-dcec-4a743bda0fca@kernel.org>

On Sat, Jul 29, 2023 at 10:58:46AM +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote:
> On 7/29/23 10:55, Damien Le Moal wrote:
> > On 7/29/23 10:35, Serge Semin wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 01:02:11PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 05:10:27PM +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote:
> >>>> On 7/21/23 16:44, Yoshihiro Shimoda wrote:
> >>>>> Using "INTx" instead of "legacy" is more specific. So, rename
> >>>>> PCI_EPC_IRQ_LEGACY to PCI_EPC_IRQ_INTX.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Suggested-by: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Yoshihiro Shimoda <yoshihiro.shimoda.uh@renesas.com>
> >>>>> Reviewed-by: Manivannan Sadhasivam <mani@kernel.org>
> >>>>> Acked-by: Jesper Nilsson <jesper.nilsson@axis.com> # ARTPEC
> >>>>> Reviewed-by: Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@gmail.com>
> >>>>
> >>
> >>>> I would rather drop completely the PCI_EPC_IRQ_XXX enum and simply use the
> >>>> PCI_IRQ_XXX macros used everywhere. Less definitions :)
> >>>>
> >>>> See attached patch that I have in my queue (about to send that).
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> It looks better! This patch should be dropped.
> >>
> >> Back then Bjorn specifically asked to change the names suffix in a
> >> preparation patch before adding the INTx support to the DW PCIe core
> >> driver (see the Sb tag in the patch log). Damien, seeing you cleanup
> >> the names anyway what about fixing the macro suffix too: INTx instead
> >> of LEGACY)?
> > 
> > Sure, I can do that. That is going to be a gigantic patch though given that
> > PCI_IRQ_LEGACY is used well beyond the ep/pcie controller drivers.
> > While I agree it would be nice to do, not sure it is worth such code churn.
> > 
> >> Mani, Damien, what do you suggest to Yoshihiro to do with the
> >> LEGACY/INTx names in the following up patches of this series?
> > 
> > If everyone is OK with the patch I proposed (the PCI_IRQ_LEGACY -> PCI_IRQ_INTx
> > change can go on top), then I can rebase it and send it next week (the remaining
> > of my EP cleanup series needs some more testing & rebasing). Yoshihiro can
> > either include it in his series or rebase on it if the patch is added to
> > pci-next quickly.
> 
> Note that we could start by simply defining an alias:
> 
> #define PCI_IRQ_INTx	PCI_IRQ_LEGACY
> 
> and gradually convert all drivers using it until we can get rid of PCI_IRQ_LEGACY.
> 
> That probably would be simpler than a treewide patch that would likely create
> lots of conflicts.

Sounds good to me. Though it's better to wait for the Bjorn opinion
about that before moving forward with the implementation.

-Serge(y)

> 
> -- 
> Damien Le Moal
> Western Digital Research
> 