On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 07:08:18PM +0530, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
> Hi Lorenzo,
>
> On 12/02/19 8:37 PM, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 12:11:44PM +0530, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >> static int pci_epf_test_bind(struct pci_epf *epf)
> >> {
> >> int ret;
> >> struct pci_epf_test *epf_test = epf_get_drvdata(epf);
> >> struct pci_epf_header *header = epf->header;
> >> + const struct pci_epc_features *epc_features;
> >> + enum pci_barno test_reg_bar = BAR_0;
> >> struct pci_epc *epc = epf->epc;
> >> struct device *dev = &epf->dev;
> >> + bool linkup_notifier = false;
> >> + bool msix_capable = false;
> >> + bool msi_capable = true;
> >>
> >> if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!epc))
> >> return -EINVAL;
> >>
> >> - if (epc->features & EPC_FEATURE_NO_LINKUP_NOTIFIER)
> >> - epf_test->linkup_notifier = false;
> >> - else
> >> - epf_test->linkup_notifier = true;
> >> -
> >> - epf_test->msix_available = epc->features & EPC_FEATURE_MSIX_AVAILABLE;
> >> + epc_features = pci_epc_get_features(epc, epf->func_no);
> >
> > I think it would work out better if struct pci_epc_features was
> > allocated in the caller (stack) and pci_epc_get_features() take a
> > pointer parameter to it rather than the callee and the callee would just
> > have to fill it out, this also removes data in the driver that is not
> > really useful.
> >
> > Is there any other reason behind the current design choice ?
>
> Some drivers are used by multiple platforms each with different features. In
> such cases it's cleaner to have separate epc_feature table for each platform.
>
> I think the driver should maintain some sort of data to even populate
> pci_epc_features allocated by EP function driver.
You mean that every EP controller driver should keep a table of
pci_epc_features (instead of a single instance) to be matched using DT
compatible strings to detect the platform variations ?
Thanks,
Lorenzo
