On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 05:06:55PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> 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.
The caller is performing one abstract operation: reading or writing
config space of a PCI device. In the caller's context, it makes no
difference whether it's a type0 or type1 access.
Moving the test from the host bridge driver to pci_read_config_byte()
does move a little code from the callee to the caller, and there are
more callees than callers, so in that sense it does remove code
overall. If you consider a single driver by itself, I'm not sure it
makes much difference.
The pcie-designware.c patch is a net removal of 17 lines, but that's
not all from moving the type0/type1 test: restructuring along the same
lines but keeping the original type0/type1 test removes about 9 lines.
Anyway, I think I'd rather work first on your RFC patches to make
pci_host_bridge the primary structure for probing PCI. I think
there will be a *lot* of benefit there.
Bjorn
--
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
