Hi Lorenzo,
On 13/02/19 7:08 PM, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
> Hi Lorenzo,
>
> On 12/02/19 8:37 PM, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 12:11:44PM +0530, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> static int pci_epf_test_bind(struct pci_epf *epf)
>>> {
>>> int ret;
>>> struct pci_epf_test *epf_test = epf_get_drvdata(epf);
>>> struct pci_epf_header *header = epf->header;
>>> + const struct pci_epc_features *epc_features;
>>> + enum pci_barno test_reg_bar = BAR_0;
>>> struct pci_epc *epc = epf->epc;
>>> struct device *dev = &epf->dev;
>>> + bool linkup_notifier = false;
>>> + bool msix_capable = false;
>>> + bool msi_capable = true;
>>>
>>> if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!epc))
>>> return -EINVAL;
>>>
>>> - if (epc->features & EPC_FEATURE_NO_LINKUP_NOTIFIER)
>>> - epf_test->linkup_notifier = false;
>>> - else
>>> - epf_test->linkup_notifier = true;
>>> -
>>> - epf_test->msix_available = epc->features & EPC_FEATURE_MSIX_AVAILABLE;
>>> + epc_features = pci_epc_get_features(epc, epf->func_no);
>>
>> I think it would work out better if struct pci_epc_features was
>> allocated in the caller (stack) and pci_epc_get_features() take a
>> pointer parameter to it rather than the callee and the callee would just
>> have to fill it out, this also removes data in the driver that is not
>> really useful.
>>
>> Is there any other reason behind the current design choice ?
>
> Some drivers are used by multiple platforms each with different features. In
> such cases it's cleaner to have separate epc_feature table for each platform.
>
> I think the driver should maintain some sort of data to even populate
> pci_epc_features allocated by EP function driver.
Btw I found some issues in the v1 of this series, so I posted v2 [1]. Please
review that.
Thanks
Kishon
[1] -> https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/1/14/288
>
> Thanks
> Kishon
>
