On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 12:44 AM, Alex Williamson
<alex.williamson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2018 13:36:34 -0600
> Logan Gunthorpe <logang@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I realize this is not a change in behavior, but since we're spelling it
> out in a proper comment rather than burying it in the implementation,
> using 0 as a wildcard is rather questionable behavior. It always
> surprises me when I read this because pci_match_one_device() uses
> PCI_ANY_ID (~0) as a wildcard and as a result of struct pci_device_id
> using __u32 for these fields, we actually need to specify ffffffff on
> the commandline to get a wildcard match for dynamic ids. The latter is
> tedious to use, but I think it's more correct, and the use of a __u32 is
> probably attributed to the fact that 0xffff is only reserved for vendor
> ID, the spec doesn't seem to reserve any entries from the vendor's
> device ID range.
>
> There's probably really no path to resolve these, but acknowledging the
> difference in this comment block might be helpful in the future.
...or introduce a parser part to allow user supply "any" instead of
numeric value.
>> + pr_info("PCI: Can't parse resource_alignment parameter: pci:%s\n",
> The "pci:" prefix on %s doesn't make sense now, it was used above when
> the pointer was already advanced past this token, now I believe it would
> lead to "pci:pci:xxxx:yyyy" or "pci:xx:yy.z". Thanks,
I'm just wondering if we can use pci_info() here, Or it makes no sense?
Also, the original loglevel was an "error".
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
