linux-kernel - Re: [v6 3/5] PCI: cadence: Use common PCI host bridge APIs for finding the capabilities

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]

Message-ID: <9118fcc0-e5a5-40f2-be4b-7e06b4b20601@163.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2025 23:37:25 +0800
From: Hans Zhang <18255117159@....com>
To: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: lpieralisi@...nel.org, kw@...ux.com, manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org,
 robh@...nel.org, bhelgaas@...gle.com, jingoohan1@...il.com,
 thomas.richard@...tlin.com, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
 LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [v6 3/5] PCI: cadence: Use common PCI host bridge APIs for
 finding the capabilities



On 2025/3/25 23:18, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:>>
>> Hi Ilpo,
>>
>> Another question comes to mind:
>> If working in EP mode, devm_pci_alloc_host_bridge will not be executed and
>> there will be no struct pci_host_bridge.
>>
>> Don't know if you have anything to add?
> 
> Hi Hans,
> 
> No, I don't have further ideas at this point, sorry. It seems it isn't
> realistic without something more substantial that currently isn't there.
> 
> This lack of way to have a generic way to read the config before the main
> struct are instanciated by the PCI core seems to be the limitation that
> hinders sharing code between controller drivers and it would have been
> nice to address it.
> 
> But please still make the capability list parsing code common, it should
> be relatively straightforward using a macro which can take different read
> functions similar to read_poll_timeout. That will avoid at least some
> amount of code duplication.
> 
> Thanks for trying to come up with a solution (or thinking enough to say
> it doesn't work)!
> 

Hi Ilpo,

It's okay. It's what I'm supposed to do. Thank you very much for your 
discussion with me. I'll try a macro definition like read_poll_timeout. 
Will share the revised patches soon for your feedback.

Best regards,
Hans