On Thursday, June 2, 2016 9:00:01 AM CEST Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > I just did a count of the implementations of pci_ops: I found 107
> > instances of 'struct pci_ops', and 67 of them treat type0 and type1
> > access differently in some form.
> >
> > I'd estimate that about half of them, or roughly a third of the total
> > instances would benefit from my change, if we were to do them again.
> > Clearly there is no need to change the existing code here when it works,
> > unless the benefit is very clear and the code is actively maintained.
> >
> > In some cases, the difference is only that the root bus has a limited
> > set of devices that are allowed to be accessed, so there would
> > likely be no benefit of this, compared to e.g. yet another callback
> > that checks the validity.
> > Some other instances have type0 registers at a different memory location
> > from type1, some use different layout inside of that space, and some
> > are completely different.
>
> The type0/type1 distinction still seems out of place to me at the call
> site. Is there any other reason a caller would care about the
> difference between type0 and type1?
The callers really shouldn't care, but they also shouldn't call the
pci_ops function pointer (and as we found earlier, there are only
three such callers).
The distinction between type0 and type1 in my mind is an implementation
detail of the pci_{read,write}_config_{byte,word,dword} functions
that call the low-level operations here.
Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
