linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 3/9] PCI: endpoint: functions/pci-epf-test: Add second entry

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 26 Apr 2018 17:56:14 +0100
From:   Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>
To:     Gustavo Pimentel <gustavo.pimentel@...opsys.com>
Cc:     bhelgaas@...gle.com, Joao.Pinto@...opsys.com, jingoohan1@...il.com,
        kishon@...com, robh+dt@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com,
        linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 3/9] PCI: endpoint: functions/pci-epf-test: Add second
 entry

On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 02:44:40PM +0100, Gustavo Pimentel wrote:
> Adds a seconds entry on the pci_epf_test_ids structure that disables the

"Add a second entry to..."

> linkup_notifier parameter on driver for the designware EP.
> 
> This allows designware EPs that doesn't have linkup notification signal
> to work with pcitest.
> 
> Updates the binding documentation accordingly.

Valid for all the series: use imperative sentences.

eg:

"Update the binding documentation accordingly".

not

"Updates the binding documentation accordingly".

> Signed-off-by: Gustavo Pimentel <gustavo.pimentel@...opsys.com>
> Acked-by: Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com>
> ---
> Change v2->v3:
>  - Added second entry in pci_epf_test_ids structure.
>  - Remove test_reg_bar field assignment on second entry.
> Changes v3->v4:
>  - Nothing changed, just to follow the patch set version.
> Changes v4->v5:
>  - Changed pci_epf_test_cfg2 to pci_epf_test_designware.
> Changes v5->v6:
>  - Changed name field from pci_epf_test_designware to pci_epf_test_dw.
> Changes v6->v7:
>  - Changed variable name from data_cfg2 to data_linkup_notifier_disabled.
> 
>  Documentation/PCI/endpoint/function/binding/pci-test.txt | 2 ++
>  drivers/pci/endpoint/functions/pci-epf-test.c            | 8 ++++++++
>  2 files changed, 10 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/PCI/endpoint/function/binding/pci-test.txt b/Documentation/PCI/endpoint/function/binding/pci-test.txt
> index 3b68b95..dc39f47 100644
> --- a/Documentation/PCI/endpoint/function/binding/pci-test.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/PCI/endpoint/function/binding/pci-test.txt
> @@ -1,6 +1,8 @@
>  PCI TEST ENDPOINT FUNCTION
>  
>  name: Should be "pci_epf_test" to bind to the pci_epf_test driver.
> +name: Should be "pci_epf_test_dw" to bind to the pci_epf_test driver
> +      with a custom configuration for the designware EP.

The link between the "name" and the device created is quite obscure and
reading pci-test-howto.txt certainly does not clarify it.

In pci-test-howto.txt an explanation should be added to the configs
device creation paragraph to clarify it.

>  Configurable Fields:
>  vendorid	 : should be 0x104c
> diff --git a/drivers/pci/endpoint/functions/pci-epf-test.c b/drivers/pci/endpoint/functions/pci-epf-test.c
> index 7cef851..4ab463b 100644
> --- a/drivers/pci/endpoint/functions/pci-epf-test.c
> +++ b/drivers/pci/endpoint/functions/pci-epf-test.c
> @@ -459,10 +459,18 @@ static int pci_epf_test_bind(struct pci_epf *epf)
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> +static const struct pci_epf_test_data data_linkup_notifier_disabled = {
> +	.linkup_notifier = false
> +};
> +
>  static const struct pci_epf_device_id pci_epf_test_ids[] = {
>  	{
>  		.name = "pci_epf_test",
>  	},
> +	{
> +		.name = "pci_epf_test_dw",
> +		.driver_data = (kernel_ulong_t)&data_linkup_notifier_disabled,
> +	},
>  	{},

Should not this be a property derived from the controller compatible
property instead of the test device name written in configfs ?

I think I am missing something in the whole scheme of things, please
clarify.

Thanks,
Lorenzo