From: Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@huawei.com>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>
Cc: Jiang Liu <liuj97@gmail.com>, Don Dutile <ddutile@redhat.com>,
Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>,
Taku Izumi <izumi.taku@jp.fujitsu.com>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>,
Kenji Kaneshige <kaneshige.kenji@jp.fujitsu.com>,
Yijing Wang <wangyijing@huawei.com>,
Keping Chen <chenkeping@huawei.com>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 05/14] PCI: add access functions for PCIe capabilities to hide PCIe spec differences
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 10:56:44 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4FFE3CEC.80804@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAErSpo7ZtrYtz_8iB8=8nbQBtntPtyi8BLg6K+D7mQjnfj-KCg@mail.gmail.com>
On 2012-7-12 1:52, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>> Hi Bjorn,
>> Seems it would be better to return error code for unimplemented
>> registers, otherwise following code will becomes more complex. A special
>> error code for unimplemented registers, such as -EIO?
>
> I think you're asking about returning error for *reads* of
> unimplemented registers? I guess I still think it's OK to completely
> hide the v1 nastiness inside these accessors, and return success with
> a zero value when reading. Having several different error returns
> seems like overkill for this case. Nobody wants to distinguish
> between different reasons for failure.
>
> I'm actually not sure that it's worth returning an error even when
> *writing* an unimplemented register. What if we return success and
> just drop the write?
>
> Maybe these should even be void functions. It feels like the only
> real use of the return value is to detect programmer error, and I
> don't think that's very effective. If we remove the return values,
> people will have to focus on the *data*, which seems more important
> anyway.
Hi Bjorn,
It's a little risk to change these PCIe capabilities access
functions as void. On some platform with hardware error detecting/correcting
capabilities, such as EEH on Power, it would be better to return
error code if hardware error happens during accessing configuration registers.
As I know, coming Intel Xeon processor may provide PCIe hardware
error detecting capability similar to EEH on power.
>> static void rtl_disable_clock_request(struct pci_dev *pdev)
>> {
>> u16 ctl;
>>
>> if (!pci_pcie_capability_read_word(pdev, PCI_EXP_LNKCTL, &ctl)) {
>> ctl &= ~PCI_EXP_LNKCTL_CLKREQ_EN;
>> pci_pcie_capability_write_word(pdev, PCI_EXP_LNKCTL, ctl);
>> }
>> }
>
> I would write that as:
>
> if (!pci_is_pcie(pdev)
> return;
>
> pci_pcie_capability_read_word(pdev, PCI_EXP_LNKCTL, &ctl);
> if (ctl & PCI_EXP_LNKCTL_CLKREQ_EN)
> pci_pcie_capability_write_word(pdev, PCI_EXP_LNKCTL, ctl &
> ~PCI_EXP_LNKCTL_CLKREQ_EN);
>
> which does the right thing regardless of what we do for return values,
> and saves a config write in the case where LNKCTL is implemented and
> CLKREQ_EN is already cleared.
When clearing a flag, we could do that. But if we are trying to set a
flag, it would be better to make sure the target register does exist.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-07-12 2:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 48+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-06-04 7:44 [Resend with Ack][PATCH v1] PCI: allow acpiphp to handle PCIe ports without native PCIe hotplug capability Jiang Liu
2012-06-04 8:23 ` Kenji Kaneshige
2012-07-03 4:16 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2012-07-03 15:59 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2012-07-03 19:50 ` Don Dutile
2012-07-04 18:07 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2012-07-09 10:05 ` Jiang Liu
2012-07-09 17:05 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2012-07-04 2:52 ` Jiang Liu
2012-07-10 15:54 ` [RFC PATCH 00/14] improve PCIe capabilities registers handling Jiang Liu
2012-07-10 18:44 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2012-07-10 15:54 ` [RFC PATCH 01/14] PCI: add pcie_flags into struct pci_dev to cache PCIe capabilities register Jiang Liu
2012-07-11 9:01 ` Taku Izumi
2012-07-11 14:27 ` Jiang Liu
2012-07-10 15:54 ` [RFC PATCH 02/14] PCI: introduce pci_pcie_type(dev) to replace pci_dev->pcie_type Jiang Liu
2012-07-10 15:54 ` [RFC PATCH 03/14] PCI: remove unused field pcie_type from struct pci_dev Jiang Liu
2012-07-10 15:54 ` [RFC PATCH 04/14] PCI: refine and move pcie_cap_has_*() macros to include/linux/pci.h Jiang Liu
2012-07-10 18:49 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2012-07-10 15:54 ` [RFC PATCH 05/14] PCI: add access functions for PCIe capabilities to hide PCIe spec differences Jiang Liu
2012-07-10 18:35 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2012-07-11 3:07 ` Jiang Liu
2012-07-11 3:40 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2012-07-11 6:40 ` Jiang Liu
2012-07-11 17:52 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2012-07-12 2:56 ` Jiang Liu [this message]
2012-07-12 20:49 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2012-07-15 16:47 ` Jiang Liu
2012-07-16 17:29 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2012-07-16 18:57 ` Don Dutile
2012-07-17 0:09 ` Jiang Liu
2012-07-17 0:14 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2012-07-10 15:54 ` [RFC PATCH 06/14] PCI: use PCIe cap access functions to simplify PCI core implementation Jiang Liu
2012-07-10 18:35 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2012-07-11 2:49 ` Jiang Liu
2012-07-10 15:54 ` [RFC PATCH 07/14] hotplug/PCI: use PCIe cap access functions to simplify implementation Jiang Liu
2012-07-10 18:35 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2012-07-10 15:54 ` [RFC PATCH 08/14] portdrv/PCI: " Jiang Liu
2012-07-10 15:54 ` [RFC PATCH 09/14] pciehp/PCI: " Jiang Liu
2012-07-10 15:54 ` [RFC PATCH 10/14] PME/PCI: " Jiang Liu
2012-07-10 15:54 ` [RFC PATCH 11/14] AER/PCI: " Jiang Liu
2012-07-10 15:54 ` [RFC PATCH 12/14] ASPM/PCI: " Jiang Liu
2012-07-10 15:54 ` [RFC PATCH 13/14] r8169/PCI: " Jiang Liu
2012-07-10 15:54 ` [RFC PATCH 14/14] qib/PCI: " Jiang Liu
2012-08-15 19:12 ` [Resend with Ack][PATCH v1] PCI: allow acpiphp to handle PCIe ports without native PCIe hotplug capability Bjorn Helgaas
2012-08-16 15:15 ` Jiang Liu
2012-08-22 15:16 ` [PATCH v2] PCI: allow acpiphp to handle PCIe ports w/o " Jiang Liu
2012-09-24 22:10 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2012-09-25 15:16 ` Jiang Liu
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4FFE3CEC.80804@huawei.com \
--to=jiang.liu@huawei.com \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=chenkeping@huawei.com \
--cc=ddutile@redhat.com \
--cc=izumi.taku@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=kaneshige.kenji@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=liuj97@gmail.com \
--cc=rjw@sisk.pl \
--cc=wangyijing@huawei.com \
--cc=yinghai@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).