Mon, Jan 15, 2024 at 03:46:17PM +0100, Philipp Stanner kirjoitti:
> The bit describing whether the PCI device is currently pinned is stored
> in the PCI devres struct. To clean up and simplify the pci-devres API,
"PCI devres", 'pci-devres', ...
Shouldn't these (and across entire series) be consistent terms?
E.g., "PCI devres API".
> it's better if this information is stored in the pci_dev struct, because
pci_dev struct --> struct pci_dev
> it allows for checking that device's pinned-status directly through the
> device struct.
> This will later permit simplifying pcim_enable_device().
> Move the 'pinned' boolean bit to struct pci_dev.
...
> u8 pm_cap; /* PM capability offset */
> unsigned int enabled:1; /* Whether this dev is enabled */
> + unsigned int pinned:1; /* Whether this dev is pinned */
> unsigned int imm_ready:1; /* Supports Immediate Readiness */
> unsigned int pme_support:5; /* Bitmask of states from which PME#
> can be generated */
First of all, I think it's better to group PM stuff, like
u8 pm_cap; /* PM capability offset */
unsigned int pme_support:5; /* Bitmask of states from which PME#
can be generated */
unsigned int imm_ready:1; /* Supports Immediate Readiness */
unsigned int enabled:1; /* Whether this dev is enabled */
unsigned int pinned:1; /* Whether this dev is pinned */
Second, does this layout anyhow related to the HW layout? (For example,
PME bits and their location in some HW register vs. these bitfields)
If so, but not sure, it might be good to preserve (to some extent) the
order.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
