Hi Jim,
[...]
> [1] These regulators typically govern the actual power supply to the
> endpoint chip. Sometimes they may be a the official PCIe socket
In the above, did you mean to say "be at the"?
> +static void *alloc_subdev_regulators(struct device *dev)
> +{
> + static const char * const supplies[] = {
> + "vpcie3v3",
> + "vpcie3v3aux",
> + "vpcie12v",
> + };
> + const size_t size = sizeof(struct subdev_regulators)
> + + sizeof(struct regulator_bulk_data) * ARRAY_SIZE(supplies);
[...]
> +int pci_subdev_regulators_add_bus(struct pci_bus *bus)
> +{
> + struct device *dev = &bus->dev;
> + struct subdev_regulators *sr;
> + int ret;
> +
> + if (!pcie_is_port_dev(bus->self))
> + return 0;
> +
> + if (WARN_ON(bus->dev.driver_data))
> + dev_err(dev, "multiple clients using dev.driver_data\n");
I have to ask - is the WARN_ON() above adding value given the nature of the
error? Would dumping a stack be of interest to someone?
Having said that, why do we even need to assert this? Can there be some
sort of a race condition with access happening here?
I am asking as pci_subdev_regulators_remove_bus() does not seem to be
concerned about this sort of thing yet it also accesses the same driver
data, and such.
[...]
> +/* forward declaration */
> +static struct pci_driver pcie_portdriver;
The comment above might not be needed as it's quite obvious what the code
at this line is for, I believe.
[...]
> @@ -131,6 +155,13 @@ static int pcie_portdrv_probe(struct pci_dev *dev,
> if (status)
> return status;
>
> + if (dev->bus->ops &&
> + dev->bus->ops->add_bus &&
> + dev->bus->dev.driver_data) {
> + pcie_portdriver.resume = subdev_regulator_resume;
> + pcie_portdriver.suspend = subdev_regulator_suspend;
> + }
> +
> pci_save_state(dev);
[...]
> @@ -237,6 +268,7 @@ static struct pci_driver pcie_portdriver = {
> .err_handler = &pcie_portdrv_err_handler,
>
> .driver.pm = PCIE_PORTDRV_PM_OPS,
> + /* Note: suspend and resume may be set during probe */
This comment here is for the "driver.pm" line above, correct? If so, then
I would move it above the statement. It's a little bit confusing
otherwise.
Krzysztof
