On Tue, 9 Nov 2021, Tom Rix wrote:
On 11/9/21 10:05 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
On Tue, Nov 09, 2021 at 07:55:43AM -0800, Tom Rix wrote:
On 11/9/21 7:41 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
Currently the find_dfls_by_vsec() opens code pci_find_vsec_capability().
Refactor the former to use the latter. No functional change intended.
Thanks for review, my answers below.
...
+ u16 voff;
The later use of voff in pci_read_config_dword is of type 'int', it may be
better to keep voff as an int.
I don't think so. The rule of thumb that the types should match the value
they
got in the first place. In this case it's u16. Compiler will implicitly
cast it
to whatever is needed as long as the type is good for integer promotion.
I think u16 is more precise than int, but I think it'll get promoted to an
int anywhen when used with calls to pci_read_config_dword(). Was this
change tested on real or emulated HW?
...
+ voff = pci_find_vsec_capability(dev, PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL,
PCI_VSEC_ID_INTEL_DFLS);
This may be a weakness in the origin code, but intel isn't the exclusive
user of DFL.
This does not change the original code. If you think so, this can be
extended
later on.
I would rather see this fixed now or explained why this isn't a problem.
I agree that a single Vendor/VSEC id being supported is a problem,
but I think fixing it should be a separate patch. Do we need to change
this a table lookup of Vendor/VSEC id's, or do we need to reserve a more
generic Vendor/VSEC pair?
Tom
if (!voff) {
dev_dbg(&pcidev->dev, "%s no DFL VSEC found\n", __func__);
return -ENODEV;
