[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220907211205.GA119516@bhelgaas>
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2022 16:12:05 -0500
From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
To: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Kai-Heng Feng <kai.heng.feng@...onical.com>,
Rajvi Jingar <rajvi.jingar@...ux.intel.com>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Koba Ko <koba.ko@...onical.com>,
"David E . Box" <david.e.box@...ux.intel.com>,
Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy
<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 05/10] PCI/PTM: Add pci_disable_ptm() wrapper
On Wed, Sep 07, 2022 at 08:28:43AM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 05:23:46PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > @@ -42,6 +42,13 @@ void pci_disable_ptm(struct pci_dev *dev)
> > pci_write_config_word(dev, ptm + PCI_PTM_CTRL, ctrl);
> > }
>
> Since you export these, I suggest adding kernel-doc to explain how these
> are supposed to be used in drivers (pre-conditions etc.).
Currently there really aren't any preconditions, so kernel-doc would
repeat the function name and parameters without adding any real
information, but I think it would be good to add a few explanatory
comments. It always seems obvious when writing it, but it's never so
obvious without all the context ;)
> > +void pci_disable_ptm(struct pci_dev *dev)
> > +{
> > + __pci_disable_ptm(dev);
> > + dev->ptm_enabled = 0;
> > +}
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(pci_disable_ptm);
>
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL()?
I don't feel strongly either way, but am inclined to do the same as
pci_enable_ptm() and pcie_ptm_enabled(), which are both EXPORT_SYMBOL.
We could change all of them at once if it's worthwhile. Currently
there's only one caller (igc) in the tree.
Bjorn
Powered by blists - more mailing lists