On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 03:37:34PM -0500, Frank Li wrote: > > > > Is there a reason why you chose to not incorporate the helper function > > that I suggested here: > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/ZzMtKUFi30_o6SwL@ryzen/ > > > > I didn't see any reply from you to that message. > > Oh, you said at > https://lore.kernel.org/imx/ZzIVzfkZe-hkAb4G@ryzen/T/#mc10e69e0e1e20cc8d8da9a8808177407d22bce06 > > I think you give up your idea about helper function, because it is one > for doorbell_offset, the other is for the atu address. bar's struct is > difference with reg. even it is similar, Yes, that is why the helper returns both base addess and offset (just like .align_addr()). > Do you means add help function, which wrap epc's .align_addr()? I know you > make some improvement about EP's alignment, but I have not realized that > related this thread at all. Look at the suggested helper that I wrote in: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/ZzMtKUFi30_o6SwL@ryzen/ If you think that the code is cleaner, feel free to incorporate it in your next version, no need to add my SoB. .align_addr() is not related at all. (.align_addr() is for alignment for outbound PCI address, and theoretically the alignment requirement for outbound could be different from inbound address alignment requirement (which is defined in epc->features->align). The only relation is that both my suggested helper, and .align_addr() both return a base address and an offset. > May "I now see why you did this. > One function is using the db offset, and the other is using the db base." > mis-lead me. Yes, I can see that this sentence can be misunderstood. > If I understand correct here, I can add wrap function for epc's > .align_addr(). at next version. Please do not wrap .align_addr(). Kishon has been very clear that he wants outbound and inbound translation requirements to not depend on each other. Kind regards, Niklas
