[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4FFD1FE7.6010504@huawei.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 14:40:39 +0800
From: Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@...wei.com>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
CC: Jiang Liu <liuj97@...il.com>, Don Dutile <ddutile@...hat.com>,
Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
Taku Izumi <izumi.taku@...fujitsu.com>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Kenji Kaneshige <kaneshige.kenji@...fujitsu.com>,
Yijing Wang <wangyijing@...wei.com>,
Keping Chen <chenkeping@...wei.com>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 05/14] PCI: add access functions for PCIe capabilities
to hide PCIe spec differences
On 2012-7-11 11:40, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>> Good point. Return success when reading unimplemented registeres, that
>> may simplify code. For we still should return -EINVAL when writing
>> unimplemented registers, right?
>
> Yeah, I guess it's OK to return -EINVAL when *writing* to an
> unimplemented register. Hopefully the caller is structured such that
> we don't even try to write in that case. It'd be interesting to audit
> the callers and explore that, but I haven't done that.
Hi Bjorn,
Seems it would be better to return error code for unimplemented
registers, otherwise following code will becomes more complex. A special
error code for unimplemented registers, such as -EIO?
static void rtl_disable_clock_request(struct pci_dev *pdev)
{
u16 ctl;
if (!pci_pcie_capability_read_word(pdev, PCI_EXP_LNKCTL, &ctl)) {
ctl &= ~PCI_EXP_LNKCTL_CLKREQ_EN;
pci_pcie_capability_write_word(pdev, PCI_EXP_LNKCTL, ctl);
}
}
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists