On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 02:24:06PM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 02:50:00PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > I thought about that and did not do it because here we are remapping
> > > resources that are _not_ PCI bus resources (ie it is not PCI BARs we
> > > are remapping), keeping the devm_* prefix would be more consistent
> > > to the typical device drivers remapping functions pattern (ie a
> > > typical PCI host controller driver would mix devm_ and pcim_ calls
> > > which is a bit hard to parse), that was my rationale.
> > >
> > > I am not too fussed about that either way, I am happy to update it to
> > > pcim_* though, it is Bjorn/Arnd's decision.
> > 
> > I would vote for pcim_*() variant.
> 
> Me too, for brevity.

devm_* is equally brief. Also, all existing pcim_*() functions take a
struct pci_dev * as their first argument, because they operate on the
PCI devices. However in this case the devm_pci_remap_*() functions do
not operate on PCI devices. Rather they operate on the struct device
that represents the PCI host bridge. Therefore I think devm_ is more
appropriate here.

Thierry