Hi David > -----Original Message----- > Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/4] ixgbe: sparc: rename the > ARCH_WANT_RELAX_ORDER to IXGBE_ALLOW_RELAXED_ORDER > Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2017 11:26:03 -0700 > From: David Miller <da...@davemloft.net> > To: dingtianh...@huawei.com > CC: catalin.mari...@arm.com, will.dea...@arm.com, mark.rutl...@arm.com, > robin.mur...@arm.com, jeffrey.t.kirs...@intel.com, > alexander.du...@gmail.com, linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org, > netdev@vger.kernel.org > > From: Ding Tianhong <dingtianh...@huawei.com> > Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2017 15:25:51 +0800 > > > Till now only the Intel ixgbe could support enable > > Relaxed ordering in the drivers for special architecture, > > but the ARCH_WANT_RELAX_ORDER is looks like a general name > > for all arch, so rename to a specific name for intel > > card looks more appropriate. > > > > Signed-off-by: Ding Tianhong <dingtianh...@huawei.com> > > This is not a driver specific facility. > > Any driver can test this symbol and act accordingly. > > Just because IXGBE is the first and only user, doesn't mean > the facility is driver specific.
Please correct me if I am wrong but my understanding is that the standard way to enable/disable relaxed ordering is to set/clear bit 4 of the Device Control Register (PCI_EXP_DEVCTL_RELAX_EN 0x0010 /* Enable relaxed ordering */). Now I have looked up for all drivers either enabling or disabling relaxed ordering and none of them seems to need a symbol to decide whether to enable it or not. Also it seems to me enabling/disabling relaxed ordering is never bound to the host architecture. So why this should be (or it is expected to be) a generic symbol? Wouldn't it be more correct to have this as a driver specific symbol now and move it to a generic one later once we have other drivers requiring it? Many thanks Gab > > Thank you. > > . >
