Hi Pali,
Thank you for sending the patch over!
[...]
> +static int pcie_change_tls_to_gen1(struct pci_dev *parent)
Just a nitpick, so feel free to ignore it. I would just call the
variable "dev" as we pass a pointer to a particular device, but it does
not matter as much, so I am leaving this to you.
[...]
> + if (ret == 0) {
You prefer this style over "if (!ret)"? Just asking in the view of the
style that seem to be preferred in the code base at the moment.
> + /* Verify that new value was really set */
> + pcie_capability_read_word(parent, PCI_EXP_LNKCTL2, ®16);
> + if ((reg16 & PCI_EXP_LNKCTL2_TLS) != PCI_EXP_LNKCTL2_TLS_2_5GT)
> + ret = -EINVAL;
I am wondering about this verification - did you have a case where the
device would not properly set its capability, or accept the write and do
nothing?
> + if (ret != 0)
I think "if (ret)" would be fine to use here, unless you prefer being
more explicit. See my question about style above.
> static bool pcie_retrain_link(struct pcie_link_state *link)
> {
> struct pci_dev *parent = link->pdev;
> unsigned long end_jiffies;
> u16 reg16;
> + u32 reg32;
> +
> + /* Check if link is capable of higher speed than 2.5 GT/s and needs quirk */
> + pcie_capability_read_dword(parent, PCI_EXP_LNKCAP, ®32);
> + if ((reg32 & PCI_EXP_LNKCAP_SLS) > PCI_EXP_LNKCAP_SLS_2_5GB) {
I wonder if moving this check to pcie_change_tls_to_gen1() would make
more sense? It would then make this function a little cleaner. What do
you think?
[...]
> +static void quirk_no_bus_reset_and_no_retrain_link(struct pci_dev *dev)
> +{
> + dev->dev_flags |= PCI_DEV_FLAGS_NO_BUS_RESET | PCI_DEV_FLAGS_NO_RETRAIN_LINK_WHEN_NOT_GEN1;
> +}
[...]
I know that the style has been changed to allow 100 characters width and
that checkpatch.pl now also does not warn about line length, as per
commit bdc48fa11e46 ("checkpatch/coding-style: deprecate 80-column
warning"), but I think Bjorn still prefers 80 characters, thus this line
above might have to be aligned.
Krzysztof
