[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID:
<SN7PR12MB8131FBDB82D2A3A539FA09D0BBE6A@SN7PR12MB8131.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2025 22:03:51 +0000
From: Vishal Aslot <vaslot@...dia.com>
To: Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>, Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@...wei.com>, Alison Schofield
<alison.schofield@...el.com>, Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>, Ira
Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, Li Ming
<ming.li@...omail.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Dan Carpenter
<dan.carpenter@...aro.org>, Zijun Hu <zijun.hu@....qualcomm.com>,
"linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org" <linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org>
CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cxl/hdm: allow zero sized committed decoders
Thanks for the quick review, Dave. Yes, forgot to put the commit message. :)
About the copyright message. Should I not be updating the year to 2025 in it?
________________________________________
From: Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 1, 2025 4:28 PM
To: Vishal Aslot; Davidlohr Bueso; Jonathan Cameron; Alison Schofield; Vishal Verma; Ira Weiny; Dan Williams; Li Ming; Peter Zijlstra; Dan Carpenter; Zijun Hu; linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cxl/hdm: allow zero sized committed decoders
External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
On 10/1/25 1:37 PM, Vishal Aslot wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Vishal Aslot <vaslot@...dia.com>
Missing commit log?
> ---
> drivers/cxl/core/hdm.c | 9 +++++++--
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cxl/core/hdm.c b/drivers/cxl/core/hdm.c
> index e9e1d555cec6..97a5f27f5b72 100644
> --- a/drivers/cxl/core/hdm.c
> +++ b/drivers/cxl/core/hdm.c
> @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
> // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
> -/* Copyright(c) 2022 Intel Corporation. All rights reserved. */
> +/* Copyright(c) 2022-2025 Intel Corporation. All rights reserved. */
Stray change?
> #include <linux/seq_file.h>
> #include <linux/device.h>
> #include <linux/delay.h>
> @@ -1050,7 +1050,7 @@ static int init_hdm_decoder(struct cxl_port *port, struct cxl_decoder *cxld,
> dev_warn(&port->dev,
> "decoder%d.%d: Committed with zero size\n",
> port->id, cxld->id);
I wonder if we should make this dev_dbg() now that it's a valid case.
> - return -ENXIO;
> + return -ENOSPC;
> }
> port->commit_end = cxld->id;
> } else {
> @@ -1210,6 +1210,11 @@ int devm_cxl_enumerate_decoders(struct cxl_hdm *cxlhdm,
> rc = init_hdm_decoder(port, cxld, target_map, hdm, i,
> &dpa_base, info);
> if (rc) {
> + if (rc == -ENOSPC) {
> + put_device(&cxld->dev);
Why put_device()? Should we enumerate this decoder instead of pretend it doesn't exist? essentially only a dev_set_name() and device_add()?
> + rc = 0;
Don't think this is needed since the continue will put it at start of the loop where rc gets written by init_hdm_decoder() return value.
> + continue;
> + }
> dev_warn(&port->dev,
> "Failed to initialize decoder%d.%d\n",
> port->id, i);
> --
> 2.34.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists