lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20180410095602.GA27363@e107981-ln.cambridge.arm.com> Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2018 10:56:02 +0100 From: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com> To: Gustavo Pimentel <gustavo.pimentel@...opsys.com> Cc: "bhelgaas@...gle.com" <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, "Joao.Pinto@...opsys.com" <Joao.Pinto@...opsys.com>, "jingoohan1@...il.com" <jingoohan1@...il.com>, "kishon@...com" <kishon@...com>, "robh+dt@...nel.org" <robh+dt@...nel.org>, "mark.rutland@....com" <mark.rutland@....com>, "linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 6/9] PCI: dwc: Define maximum number of vectors On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 08:59:30AM +0100, Gustavo Pimentel wrote: > Hi Lorenzo, > > On 09/04/2018 17:03, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 09, 2018 at 10:41:15AM +0100, Gustavo Pimentel wrote: > >> Adds a callback that defines the maximum number of vectors that can be use > >> by the Root Complex. > >> > >> Since this is a parameter associated to each SoC IP setting, makes sense to > >> be configurable and easily visible to future modifications. > >> > >> The designware IP supports a maximum of 256 vectors. > > > > I think that a DT property instead of a callback would have made more > > sense - I struggle to see the point in defining a callback to initialize > > a variable, this can be done in the generic dwc code (and a DT binding). > > The addition of this callback was done in MSI-X patch series before I take over > the PCIe Designware driver responsibility. However I remember a thread in which > this subject was discussed (see [1]), maybe this could bring some light about > the motive why is was done like this. If you don't agree I can do patch after > this series only focusing on this topic in order to do like to suggested. > > [1] -> https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-pci/msg61835.html Lucas has a point - it is fine to handle them as you do in this patch, it does not make much sense to add a property for something that strictly depends on the compatible string. Thanks, Lorenzo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists