On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 03:22:58PM +0800, Dongdong Liu wrote: > 在 2017/8/15 4:16, Bjorn Helgaas 写道: > >The existing code (before this patch) sometimes uses &pdev->dev and > >sometimes &dpc->dev->device. I'm not sure why the difference and I > >wish they were all consistent. > > I investigate current port service drivers. > AER and PME driver xxx_probe() use &dev->port->dev (&pdev->dev) > But DPC and HP xxx_probe() use &dev->device (&dpc->dev->device) > So should we need to modify them to keep consistent? > It is better to write a seperate patch if need. My first complaint is that even within DPC we aren't consistent. We should fix that first. And yes, this should be a separate patch. It'd be nice if AER/PME/DPC/HP were also all consistent, but we can defer that. > >Is there value in defining the struct dpc_rp_pio_regs, reading all the > >info into it with one function, then having a second function to print > >the info? > Yes, that is the function do. > > >It seems like you could have a single function that prints the info as > >it reads it, without having to define a new struct. > > It seems to have too many lines if having a single function, > and struct dpc_rp_pio_regs rp_pio_regs is a stack local variable. > So I think current code is ok. OK. Bjorn
