Re: [PATCH v3 00/32] provide interfaces to access PCIe capabilitiesregisters

[Jiang Liu]

On 08/14/2012 12:25 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 8:54 AM, Jiang Liu <liuj97@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> From: Jiang Liu <liuj97@xxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> As suggested by Bjorn Helgaas and Don Dutile in threads
>> http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-pci/msg15663.html, we could improve access
>> to PCIe capabilities register in to way:
>> 1) cache content of PCIe Capabilities Register into struct pce_dev to avoid
>>    repeatedly reading this register because it's read only.
>> 2) provide access functions for PCIe Capabilities registers to hide differences
>>    among PCIe base specifications, so the caller don't need to handle those
>>    differences.
>>
>> This patch set applies to
>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/helgaas/pci.git pci-next
> 
> Would you mind rebasing this to v3.6-rc1?  I think you posted this
> when my branch was still 3.5-based, and there are some upstream
> changes that cause minor conflicts here.
> 
> You currently have:
> 
>     int pci_pcie_capability_change_word(struct pci_dev *dev, int pos,
> u16 set_bits, u16 clear_bits)
> 
> I think this is a bit awkward because the function name doesn't
> suggest *how* the word will be changed, and the clearing happens
> before the setting (opposite the parameter order).  Something like:
> 
>     int pci_pcie_capability_mask_and_set_word(..., u16 mask, u16 set) or
>     int pci_pcie_capability_clear_and_set_word(..., u16 clear, u16 set)
> 
> would be more obvious.  If you use "mask_and_set", I think the
> function should do "(val & mask) | set" with the complement being at
> the call site.  If you use "clear_and_set", I think it's OK to do
> "(val & ~mask) | set" as in your current patch.
> 
> I know I suggested the "pci_pcie_capability_*" names, but they're
> getting a bit unwieldy, especially if we do "mask_and_set" or similar.
>  There are already several "pcie_*" functions, so maybe we should
> drop the leading "pci_" from these and just have:
> 
>     pcie_capability_read_word
>     pcie_capability_write_word
>     pcie_capability_mask_and_set_word
> 
> Bjorn
> 
Hi Bjorn,
	I have made following changes according to your suggestions,
	1) get rid of the "pci_" prefix for access functions.
	2) rename pci_pcie_capability_change_{word|dword}() to
	pcie_capability_clear_and_set_{word|dword}.
	3) add pcie_capability_{set|clear}_{word|dword}().
	4) Add "Acked-by" and "Reviewed-by"
	5) rebase to your latest pci-next tree

	So could you please help to pull from "https://github.com/jiangliu/linux.git topic/pcie-cap"
or should I send all the patches to mail list again?

	Regards!
	Gerry

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/