In reference to the PCI spec (Chapter 2), PCIBIOS* is an x86 concept.
Their scope should be limited within arch/x86.
Change all PCIBIOS_SUCCESSFUL to 0
Signed-off-by: "Saheed O. Bolarinwa" <[email protected]>
---
drivers/ssb/driver_gige.c | 4 ++--
drivers/ssb/driver_pcicore.c | 4 ++--
2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/ssb/driver_gige.c b/drivers/ssb/driver_gige.c
index ebee6b0e3c34..ccb4a35715bf 100644
--- a/drivers/ssb/driver_gige.c
+++ b/drivers/ssb/driver_gige.c
@@ -134,7 +134,7 @@ static int ssb_gige_pci_read_config(struct pci_bus *bus, unsigned int devfn,
}
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dev->lock, flags);
- return PCIBIOS_SUCCESSFUL;
+ return 0;
}
static int ssb_gige_pci_write_config(struct pci_bus *bus, unsigned int devfn,
@@ -164,7 +164,7 @@ static int ssb_gige_pci_write_config(struct pci_bus *bus, unsigned int devfn,
}
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dev->lock, flags);
- return PCIBIOS_SUCCESSFUL;
+ return 0;
}
static int ssb_gige_probe(struct ssb_device *sdev,
diff --git a/drivers/ssb/driver_pcicore.c b/drivers/ssb/driver_pcicore.c
index c1186415896b..1b67af1097c8 100644
--- a/drivers/ssb/driver_pcicore.c
+++ b/drivers/ssb/driver_pcicore.c
@@ -212,7 +212,7 @@ static int ssb_pcicore_read_config(struct pci_bus *bus, unsigned int devfn,
PCI_FUNC(devfn), reg, val, size);
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&cfgspace_lock, flags);
- return err ? PCIBIOS_DEVICE_NOT_FOUND : PCIBIOS_SUCCESSFUL;
+ return err ? PCIBIOS_DEVICE_NOT_FOUND : 0;
}
static int ssb_pcicore_write_config(struct pci_bus *bus, unsigned int devfn,
@@ -226,7 +226,7 @@ static int ssb_pcicore_write_config(struct pci_bus *bus, unsigned int devfn,
PCI_FUNC(devfn), reg, &val, size);
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&cfgspace_lock, flags);
- return err ? PCIBIOS_DEVICE_NOT_FOUND : PCIBIOS_SUCCESSFUL;
+ return err ? PCIBIOS_DEVICE_NOT_FOUND : 0;
}
static struct pci_ops ssb_pcicore_pciops = {
--
2.18.2
On 7/13/20 7:22 AM, Saheed O. Bolarinwa wrote:
> In reference to the PCI spec (Chapter 2), PCIBIOS* is an x86 concept.
> Their scope should be limited within arch/x86.
>
> Change all PCIBIOS_SUCCESSFUL to 0
>
> Signed-off-by: "Saheed O. Bolarinwa" <[email protected]>
Could you please tell me what difference this makes? It looks like source churn
rather than a substantive change. The symbol is defined in pci.h and is used in
many architures. Certainly, PCIBIOS_SUCCESSFUL indicates success even more
clearly than 0 does.
Why is your name inside quotes in your s-o-b?
Larry
Hello Larry,
On 7/13/20 7:16 PM, Larry Finger wrote:
> On 7/13/20 7:22 AM, Saheed O. Bolarinwa wrote:
>> In reference to the PCI spec (Chapter 2), PCIBIOS* is an x86 concept.
>> Their scope should be limited within arch/x86.
>>
>> Change all PCIBIOS_SUCCESSFUL to 0
>>
>> Signed-off-by: "Saheed O. Bolarinwa" <[email protected]>
>
> Could you please tell me what difference this makes? It looks like
> source churn rather than a substantive change. The symbol is defined
> in pci.h and is used in many architures. Certainly, PCIBIOS_SUCCESSFUL
> indicates success even more clearly than 0 does.
>
It is a trivial first step towards a probably significant task. I
explained in the Cover Letter, I can see it didn't get through but I Cc
linux-wireless (properly this time). Probably, too many addresses.
I have resent it. It is here
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-wireless/[email protected]/T/#u
> Why is your name inside quotes in your s-o-b?
>
To keep me company before I get to know my way within the kernel.
I saw people with >2 names do it, so I did! Please let me know if it is odd.
Thank you.
- Saheed
On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 8:13 PM Saheed Bolarinwa
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On 7/13/20 7:16 PM, Larry Finger wrote:
>
> > Why is your name inside quotes in your s-o-b?
> >
> To keep me company before I get to know my way within the kernel.
>
> I saw people with >2 names do it, so I did! Please let me know if it is odd.
It's required for a proper email header if you have a dor (.) in your cleartext
name, but it is not required in a Signed-off-by tag, though a number of people
still do it out of habit. I'm sure it's fine either way.
Arnd
On 7/13/20 2:13 PM, Saheed Bolarinwa wrote:
> Hello Larry,
>
> On 7/13/20 7:16 PM, Larry Finger wrote:
>> On 7/13/20 7:22 AM, Saheed O. Bolarinwa wrote:
>>> In reference to the PCI spec (Chapter 2), PCIBIOS* is an x86 concept.
>>> Their scope should be limited within arch/x86.
>>>
>>> Change all PCIBIOS_SUCCESSFUL to 0
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: "Saheed O. Bolarinwa" <[email protected]>
>>
>> Could you please tell me what difference this makes? It looks like source
>> churn rather than a substantive change. The symbol is defined in pci.h and is
>> used in many architures. Certainly, PCIBIOS_SUCCESSFUL indicates success even
>> more clearly than 0 does.
>>
> It is a trivial first step towards a probably significant task. I explained in
> the Cover Letter, I can see it didn't get through but I Cc linux-wireless
> (properly this time). Probably, too many addresses.
>
> I have resent it. It is here
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-wireless/[email protected]/T/#u
>
>
>> Why is your name inside quotes in your s-o-b?
>>
> To keep me company before I get to know my way within the kernel.
>
> I saw people with >2 names do it, so I did! Please let me know if it is odd.
>
Thank you for the explanations. The cover letter did help.
For both SSB and BMCA changes,
Acked-by: Larry Finger <[email protected]>
Larry