[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <58883A65.8020306@ti.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 11:10:53 +0530
From: Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
CC: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Jingoo Han <jingoohan1@...il.com>,
Joao Pinto <Joao.Pinto@...opsys.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
<linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
<linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>, <linux-arm-kernel@...s.com>,
<linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>, <nsekhar@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 31/37] misc: Add host side pci driver for pci test
function device
Hi,
On Tuesday 24 January 2017 09:32 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 03:56:20PM +0530, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
>> Add PCI endpoint test driver that can verify base address
>> register, legacy interrupt/MSI interrupt and read/write/copy
>> buffers between host and device. The corresponding pci-epf-test
>> function driver should be used on the EP side.
>
> Just curious: what would you think of a text based (e.g. debugfs)
> interface to avoid the need for a userspace tool here?
I felt having a userspace tool gives the flexibility to add more tests
(iterations, sizes etc..) while the driver can just focus on performing simple
tests. Say we'd like to perform infinite read/write tests, it's better if the
userspace tool invokes read/write tests repeatedly instead of that being
implemented in the driver.
>
>> +static const struct pci_device_id pci_endpoint_test_tbl[] = {
>> + { PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_TI, PCI_ANY_ID) },
>> + { }
>> +};
>> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(pci, pci_endpoint_test_tbl);
>
> Also this looks really odd, and dangerous. Probing for any
> TI device will bind to all kinds of legit devices. It would
> be good if you could squeeze out a single id for this device
There is actually an id for the device, but I think we'll need an id for every
function right?
Having said that the id for the device is better than PCI_ANY_ID. Will fix it
in my next revision.
Thanks
Kishon
Powered by blists - more mailing lists