On 11/22/2017 12:45 AM, Timur Tabi wrote: > On 11/21/17 11:31 PM, Sinan Kaya wrote: >> Use pci_get_domain_bus_and_slot() with a domain number of 0 where we can't >> extract the domain number. Other places, use the actual domain number from >> the device. >> >> Now that all users of pci_get_bus_and_slot() switched to >> pci_get_domain_bus_and_slot(), it is now safe to remove this function. > > This doesn't really eliminate pci_get_bus_and_slot(), because it doesn't force developers to support non-zero domains. What's to stop a driver developer from doing this? > > #define pci_get_bus_and_slot(b, d) pci_get_domain_bus_and_slot(0, b, d) > > thereby completely ignoring what you're trying to do? > Surely, the goal is not to eliminate all domain 0 users/assumptions but open the path for flexibility over time. There are patches in this series where I hard-coded a value of 0 because domain information was not available. For places where domain number information is available, I extracted domain number and added into pci_get_domain_bus_and_slot() call such as xen or bn drivers. This will allow these drivers to be used with non-zero segment numbers. These issues were missed until this refactoring took place. pci_get_domain_bus_and_slot() function makes the developer think about where to find the domain number as it is mandatory. I also double checked that all current users of pci_get_domain_bus_and_slot() are actually extracting the domain number correctly along with the bus, device, function. The assumption at this point is for pci_get_bus_and_slot() usages to be caught in code-review. This is a best-effort approach towards flexibility. -- Sinan Kaya Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
