[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3106bd57-9144-6a4d-8ad9-3ebf804018ab@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2021 04:27:45 -0800
From: Tom Rix <trix@...hat.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Moritz Fischer <mdf@...nel.org>,
Matthew Gerlach <matthew.gerlach@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-fpga@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Wu Hao <hao.wu@...el.com>, Xu Yilun <yilun.xu@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] fpga: dfl: pci: Use pci_find_vsec_capability()
when looking for DFL
On 11/10/21 12:24 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 09, 2021 at 10:27:58AM -0800, Tom Rix wrote:
>> On 11/9/21 10:05 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 09, 2021 at 07:55:43AM -0800, Tom Rix wrote:
>>>> On 11/9/21 7:41 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> ...
>
>>>>> + voff = pci_find_vsec_capability(dev, PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL, PCI_VSEC_ID_INTEL_DFLS);
>>>> This may be a weakness in the origin code, but intel isn't the exclusive
>>>> user of DFL.
>>> This does not change the original code. If you think so, this can be extended
>>> later on.
>> I would rather see this fixed now or explained why this isn't a problem.
> This is out of scope of this change in a few ways:
> - we don't do 2+ things in one patch
> - the change doesn't change behaviour
> - the change is a simple cleanup
> - another vendor may well have quite different VSEC ID for DFL
>
> If you think that it should be needed, one can come up with it later on.
Fixing a problem is more useful than a cleanup. The fix should come first.
Tom
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists