[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210525160309.trpo2cvzpkpkkidx@archlinux>
Date: Tue, 25 May 2021 21:33:09 +0530
From: Amey Narkhede <ameynarkhede03@...il.com>
To: Krzysztof Wilczyński <kw@...ux.com>
Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, alex.williamson@...hat.com,
raphael.norwitz@...anix.com, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND v2 2/7] PCI: Add pcie_reset_flr to follow calling
convention of other reset methods
On 21/05/25 05:17PM, Krzysztof Wilczyński wrote:
> Hi Amey,
>
> Sorry for late reply!
>
> [...]
> > > Similarly to my suggestion in the first patch in the series, perhaps
> > > using a boolean here would be an option.
> > >
> > > Having said that, the following existing functions aren't doing it, so
> > > for the sake of keeping things consistent it might not be the best
> > > option, as per:
> > >
> > > static int pci_af_flr(struct pci_dev *dev, int probe)
> > > int nvme_disable_and_flr(struct pci_dev *dev, int probe)
> > >
> > > Krzysztof
> >
> > All the functions which implement different types of resets including
> > quirks have ...reset(struct pci_dev *dev, int probe) signature.
> > Should I modify all of them?
>
> Might not be worth it to change anything then, especially if the other
> functions there already use an integer argument to enable or disable the
> problem or something else. At least no in this series.
>
> Krzysztof
Actually I made a new separate patch at the end to implement this change.
I'll send v3 soon.
Thanks,
Amey
Powered by blists - more mailing lists