On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 04:33:40PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 12:22:13PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > Hi Lorenzo, > > > > On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 11:19 AM Lorenzo Pieralisi > > <lorenzo.pieralisi@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 11:02:31AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > > On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 10:57 AM Lorenzo Pieralisi > > > > <lorenzo.pieralisi@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 08:35:04PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: > > > > > > On 5/5/20 8:02 PM, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri, May 01, 2020 at 10:42:06PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: > > > > > > >> On 4/28/20 10:32 AM, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > > > > > > >>> On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 02:31:47PM +0200, marek.vasut@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > > > > >>>> From: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut+renesas@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> The PHY initialization function pointer does not change during the > > > > > > >>>> lifetime of the driver instance, it is therefore sufficient to get > > > > > > >>>> the pointer in .probe(), cache it in driver private data, and just > > > > > > >>>> call the function through the cached pointer in .resume(). > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut+renesas@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > >>>> Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > >>>> Cc: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@xxxxxxx> > > > > > > >>>> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > >>>> Cc: Wolfram Sang <wsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > >>>> Cc: linux-renesas-soc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > > > >>>> --- > > > > > > >>>> NOTE: Based on git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/lpieralisi/pci.git > > > > > > >>>> branch pci/rcar > > > > > > >>>> NOTE: The driver tag is now 'pcie-rcar' to distinguish it from pci-rcar-gen2.c > > > > > > >>>> --- > > > > > > >>>> drivers/pci/controller/pcie-rcar.c | 10 ++++------ > > > > > > >>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> Squashed in https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11438665 > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Thanks > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>> Do you want me to rename the $SUBJECT (and the branch name while at it) > > > > > > >>> in the patches in my pci/rcar branch ("PCI: pcie-rcar: ...") to start > > > > > > >>> the commit subject tag renaming from this cycle (and in the interim you > > > > > > >>> send a rename for the drivers files ?) > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> I don't really have a particular preference either way. I can keep > > > > > > >> marking the drivers with pcie-rcar and pci-rcar tags if that helps > > > > > > >> discern them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - "rcar" for the PCIe driver > > > > > > > > > > > > Wouldn't it be better to mark this rcar-pcie , so it's clear it's the > > > > > > PCIe driver ? > > > > > > > > > > All other drivers in drivers/pci/controller are PCIe but don't require > > > > > an extra tag to clarify it - that's the rationale behind "rcar". > > > > > > > > > > How does that sound ? > > > > > > > > Are there any other platforms that have two different drivers for the same > > > > platform, one for PCI, and one for PCIe? > > > > > > I don't think so - nonetheless it's time we agreed on something and be > > > done with it. Bjorn expressed his opinion on this and unless we have a > > > compelling reason not to follow it IMO it'd be better to take it. > > > > > > I don't think using rcar-pcie is a disaster either. > > > > > > Let me know how you want to proceed, thanks. > > > > /me has just returned from a bike ride, so it's time for a bike-shed > > > > "PCI: rcar:" for pcie-rcar.c, "PCI: rcar-gen2:" (or "PCI: rcar2"?) for > > pci-rcar-gen2.c? > > Fine by me, all agreed ? Sounds good to me.
