[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ad60832e-a0bd-007f-293f-dc5ad3e629d5@codeaurora.org>
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 14:29:03 -0500
From: Sinan Kaya <okaya@...eaurora.org>
To: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, timur@...eaurora.org,
David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:DRM DRIVERS" <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@...el.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH V3 09/29] drm/i915: deprecate
pci_get_bus_and_slot()
On 11/28/2017 11:29 AM, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> On 11/28/2017 10:30 AM, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
>>> + dev_priv->bridge_dev =
>>> + pci_get_domain_bus_and_slot(domain, 0, PCI_DEVFN(0, 0));
>> Maybe just pci_get_slot(pdev->bus, PCI_DEVFN(0, 0)) ?
>>
>> I guess if we want to be pedantic we could go for:
>>
>> bus = pci_find_host_bridge(pdev->bus)->bus;
>> pci_get_slot(bus, PCI_DEVFN(0, 0))
>>
>> but I think the GPU should always be on the root bus, so the simpler
>> form should be fine.
>>
>
> All three of these should be correct.
>
> I'll use pci_get_slot(pdev->bus, PCI_DEVFN(0, 0)) as you suggested.
>
Now that I think about this more, I think my version is a simpler change
and does not introduce "new features" by assuming GPU and host to be
on the same bus similar to the original code.
Original code could have used pci_get_slot() too. Since all of them are
correct, mine is slightly more correct; I'd like to keep mine.
--
Sinan Kaya
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists