Hi Cyrille,
On Thursday 14 December 2017 10:33 PM, Cyrille Pitchen wrote:
> Le 13/12/2017 à 17:50, Cyrille Pitchen a écrit :
>> Hi Kishon,
>>
>> Le 05/12/2017 à 10:19, Kishon Vijay Abraham I a écrit :
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Friday 01 December 2017 05:50 PM, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 04:01:50PM +0100, Cyrille Pitchen wrote:
>>>>> This patch adds support to the Cadence PCIe controller in endpoint mode.
>>>>
>>>> Please add a brief description to the log to describe the most salient
>>>> features.
>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Cyrille Pitchen <cyrille.pitchen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> drivers/pci/cadence/Kconfig | 9 +
>>>>> drivers/pci/cadence/Makefile | 1 +
>>>>> drivers/pci/cadence/pcie-cadence-ep.c | 553 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>> 3 files changed, 563 insertions(+)
>>>>> create mode 100644 drivers/pci/cadence/pcie-cadence-ep.c
> [...]
>>>>> +static int cdns_pcie_ep_write_header(struct pci_epc *epc,
>>>>> + struct pci_epf_header *hdr)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + struct cdns_pcie_ep *ep = epc_get_drvdata(epc);
>>>>> + struct cdns_pcie *pcie = &ep->pcie;
>>>>> + u8 fn = 0;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if (fn == 0) {
>>>>
>>>> I think there is some code to retrieve fn missing here.
>>>
>>> hmm.. the endpoint core has to send the function number which right now it's
>>> not doing though it has the function number info in pci_epf.
>>
>> Would it be OK if I add a new patch in the next series adding a
>> 'struct pcie_epf *epf' as a 2nd argument to all handlers in the
>> 'struct pcie_epc_ops'? This way I could have access to epf->func_no as needed.
I prefer we just pass the func_no as the second argument. Do you see a problem
with that?
>>
>
> Except for pci_epc_start() and pci_epc_stop(), both only called from
> pci_epc_start_store(), I don't have trouble getting the epf value to be passed
> as a 2nd argument to all other handlers in 'struct pcie_epc_ops'.
pci_epc_start()/pci_epc_stop() is used to start/stop the end point controller
as a whole and shouldn't need epf.
>
> Now my next question is: is it better to keep the 'struct pci_epc *epc' as
> the 1st argument of all those handlers or do you prefer me to remove it as
> the value can always be retrieved from epf->epc, since now we provide epf as
> a new argument ?
Do we really need to pass epf when func_no is all we need?
Thanks
Kishon
