[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <80d610bf-71d8-d2c1-9c75-b0a58cb5c8ed@nvidia.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2019 20:10:10 +0530
From: Vidya Sagar <vidyas@...dia.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
CC: <jingoohan1@...il.com>, <gustavo.pimentel@...opsys.com>,
<lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>, <andrew.murray@....com>,
<bhelgaas@...gle.com>, <kishon@...com>, <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
<Jisheng.Zhang@...aptics.com>, <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
<linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<kthota@...dia.com>, <mmaddireddy@...dia.com>, <sagar.tv@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] PCI: dwc: Add new feature to skip core initialization
On 11/27/2019 3:18 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 02:38:48PM +0530, Vidya Sagar wrote:
>> + if (ep->ops->get_features) {
>> + epc_features = ep->ops->get_features(ep);
>> + if (epc_features->skip_core_init)
>> + return 0;
>> }
>>
>> + return dw_pcie_ep_init_complete(ep);
>
> This calling convention is strange. Just split the early part of
> dw_pcie_ep_init into an dw_pcie_ep_early and either add a tiny
> wrapper like:
>
> int dw_pcie_ep_init(struct dw_pcie_ep *ep)
> {
> int error;
>
> error = dw_pcie_ep_init_early(ep);
> if (error)
> return error;
> return dw_pcie_ep_init_late(ep);
> }
>
> or just open code that in the few callers. That keeps the calling
> conventions much simpler and avoids relying on a callback and flag.
I'm not sure if I got this right. I think in any case, code that is going to be
part of dw_pcie_ep_init_late() needs to depend on callback and flag right?
I mean, unless it is confirmed (by calling the get_features() callback and
checking whether or not the core is available for programming) dw_pcie_ep_init_late()
can't be called right?
Please let me know if I'm missing something here.
- Vidya Sagar
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists