On 4/3/24 23:26, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > On Tue, Apr 02, 2024 at 09:14:20AM +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote: >> On 4/2/24 00:50, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: >>> Currently, 'struct pci_epc_event_ops' has a bunch of events that are sent >>> from the EPC driver to EPF driver. But those events are a mix of EPC >>> specific events like core_init and PCIe bus specific events like LINK_UP, >>> LINK_DOWN, BME etc... >>> >>> Let's decouple them to respective structs (pci_epc_event_ops, >>> pci_epc_bus_event_ops) to make the separation clear. >> >> I fail to see the benefits here. The event operation names are quite clear and, >> in my opinion, it is clear if an event op applies to the controller or to the >> bus/link. If anything, "core_init" could a little more clear, so renaming that >> "ep_controller_init" or something like that (clearly spelling out what is being >> initialized) seems enough to me. Similarly, the "bme" op name is very criptic. >> Renaming that to "bus_master_enable" would go a long way clarifying the code. >> For link events, "link_up", "link_down" are clear. So I think there is no need >> to split the event op struct like this. Renaming the ops is better. >> >> Note that I am not opposed to this patch, but I think it is just code churn >> that does not really bring any fundamental improvement. Regardless, renaming >> "core_init" and "bme" ops is I think desired. >> > > Niklas shared the same view during v1, but I hate to see the events being mixed > in a single ops. Especially that it will confuse the developers who are not > familiar with the EP subsystem. > > But since the argument is coming twice, I've decided to drop this for now and > just rename the 'core_init' callback to 'epc_init' and name the deinit callback > as 'epc_deinit'. Sounds good. Please also rename the completely unclear "bme" operation. Spell it out to be clear. -- Damien Le Moal Western Digital Research
