On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 05:41:01PM +0100, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > /* Scan bus look for a specific device. Only bus 0 scanned for now. */
> > -pcidevaddr_t pci_find_dev(uint16_t vendor_id, uint16_t device_id)
> > +int pci_find_dev(struct pci_dev *pci_dev, uint16_t vendor_id, uint16_t device_id)
> > {
> > pcidevaddr_t dev;
> >
> > - for (dev = 0; dev < 256; ++dev) {
> > + for (dev = 0; dev < PCI_DEVFN_MAX; ++dev) {
>
> Why introduce this PCI_DEVFN_MAX define?
>
> > if (pci_config_readw(dev, PCI_VENDOR_ID) == vendor_id &&
> > - pci_config_readw(dev, PCI_DEVICE_ID) == device_id)
> > - return dev;
> > + pci_config_readw(dev, PCI_DEVICE_ID) == device_id) {
> > + pci_dev_init(pci_dev, dev);
> > + return 0;
> > + }
> > }
> >
> > - return PCIDEVADDR_INVALID;
> > + return -1;
>
> Why not use bool for the ret type; true=good, false=bad?
Both ways look strange to me. I would leave pci_find_dev() as is (low-
level) and move pci_dev_init() outside - so a usage would be i.e.:
dev = pci_find_dev(PCI_VENDOR_ID_REDHAT, PCI_DEVICE_ID_REDHAT_TEST);
if (dev == PCIDEVADDR_INVALID)
...
pci_dev_init(&pci_dev, dev);
> Thanks,
> drew
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
