On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 02:31:14PM +1100, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
> Does PCI_DOE_DATA_OBJECT_DISC_REQ_3_DISCOVER_VER need to be in pci-regs.h?
Yes that's fine.
> --- a/include/uapi/linux/pci_regs.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/pci_regs.h
> @@ -1144,6 +1144,7 @@
> #define PCI_DOE_DATA_OBJECT_HEADER_2_LENGTH 0x0003ffff
>
> #define PCI_DOE_DATA_OBJECT_DISC_REQ_3_INDEX 0x000000ff
> +#define PCI_DOE_DATA_OBJECT_DISC_REQ_3_DISCOVER_VER 0x0000ff00
> #define PCI_DOE_DATA_OBJECT_DISC_RSP_3_VID 0x0000ffff
> #define PCI_DOE_DATA_OBJECT_DISC_RSP_3_PROTOCOL 0x00ff0000
> #define PCI_DOE_DATA_OBJECT_DISC_RSP_3_NEXT_INDEX 0xff000000
"DISCOVER" duplicates the preceding "DISC", maybe just
"PCI_DOE_DATA_OBJECT_DISC_REQ_3_VERSION" for simplicity?
> -static int pci_doe_discovery(struct pci_doe_mb *doe_mb, u8 *index, u16 *vid,
> +static int pci_doe_discovery(struct pci_doe_mb *doe_mb, u8 capver, u8 *index, u16 *vid,
> u8 *protocol)
> {
> + u32 disver = FIELD_PREP(PCI_DOE_DATA_OBJECT_DISC_REQ_3_DISCOVER_VER,
> + (capver >= 2) ? 2 : 0);
> u32 request_pl = FIELD_PREP(PCI_DOE_DATA_OBJECT_DISC_REQ_3_INDEX,
> - *index);
> + *index) | disver;
Hm, why use a separate "disver" variable? This could be combined
into a single statement.
Subject should probably be "PCI/DOE: Support discovery version 2".
Otherwise LGTM.
Thanks,
Lukas
