On Thu, 2024-10-10 at 17:40 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 09, 2024 at 10:35:07AM +0200, Philipp Stanner wrote:
> > pci_intx() is a hybrid function which sometimes performs devres
> > operations, depending on whether pcim_enable_device() has been used
> > to
> > enable the pci_dev. This sometimes-managed nature of the function
> > is
> > problematic. Notably, it causes the function to allocate under some
> > circumstances which makes it unusable from interrupt context.
> >
> > To, ultimately, remove the hybrid nature from pci_intx(), it is
> > first
> > necessary to provide an always-managed and a never-managed version
> > of that function. Then, all callers of pci_intx() can be ported to
> > the
> > version they need, depending whether they use pci_enable_device()
> > or
> > pcim_enable_device().
> >
> > An always-managed function exists, namely pcim_intx(), for which
> > __pcim_intx(), a never-managed version of pci_intx() had been
> > implemented.
>
> > Make __pcim_intx() a public function under the name
> > pci_intx_unmanaged(). Make pcim_intx() a public function.
>
> To avoid an additional churn we can make just completely new APIs,
> namely:
> pcim_int_x()
> pci_int_x()
>
> You won't need all dirty dances with double underscored function
> naming and
> renaming.
Ähm.. I can't follow. The new version doesn't use double underscores
anymore. __pcim_intx() is being removed, effectively.
After this series, we'd end up with a clean:
pci_intx() <-> pcim_intx()
just as in the other PCI APIs.
>
>
> ...
>
> > + pci_read_config_word(pdev, PCI_COMMAND, &pci_command);
> > +
> > + if (enable)
> > + new = pci_command & ~PCI_COMMAND_INTX_DISABLE;
> > + else
> > + new = pci_command | PCI_COMMAND_INTX_DISABLE;
> > +
> > + if (new != pci_command)
>
> I would use positive conditionals as easy to read (yes, a couple of
> lines
> longer, but also a win is the indentation and avoiding an additional
> churn in
> the future in case we need to add something in this branch.
I can't follow. You mean:
if (new == pci_command)
return;
?
That's exactly the same level of indentation. Plus, I just copied the
code.
>
> > + pci_write_config_word(pdev, PCI_COMMAND, new);
>
> ...
>
> Otherwise I'm for the idea in general.
\o/
>
