Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 26 Apr 2018 17:56:14 +0100
From:   Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>
To:     Gustavo Pimentel <gustavo.pimentel@synopsys.com>
Cc:     bhelgaas@google.com, Joao.Pinto@synopsys.com, jingoohan1@gmail.com,
        kishon@ti.com, robh+dt@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com,
        linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 3/9] PCI: endpoint: functions/pci-epf-test: Add second
 entry
Message-ID: <20180426165605.GA6370@e107981-ln.cambridge.arm.com>
References: <cover.1524577064.git.gustavo.pimentel@synopsys.com>
 <c6cfd167838ae8e226dee0820983efe918fa4e1f.1524577064.git.gustavo.pimentel@synopsys.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <c6cfd167838ae8e226dee0820983efe918fa4e1f.1524577064.git.gustavo.pimentel@synopsys.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 02:44:40PM +0100, Gustavo Pimentel wrote:
> Adds a seconds entry on the pci_epf_test_ids structure that disables the

"Add a second entry to..."

> linkup_notifier parameter on driver for the designware EP.
> 
> This allows designware EPs that doesn't have linkup notification signal
> to work with pcitest.
> 
> Updates the binding documentation accordingly.

Valid for all the series: use imperative sentences.

eg:

"Update the binding documentation accordingly".

not

"Updates the binding documentation accordingly".

> Signed-off-by: Gustavo Pimentel <gustavo.pimentel@synopsys.com>
> Acked-by: Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@ti.com>
> ---
> Change v2->v3:
>  - Added second entry in pci_epf_test_ids structure.
>  - Remove test_reg_bar field assignment on second entry.
> Changes v3->v4:
>  - Nothing changed, just to follow the patch set version.
> Changes v4->v5:
>  - Changed pci_epf_test_cfg2 to pci_epf_test_designware.
> Changes v5->v6:
>  - Changed name field from pci_epf_test_designware to pci_epf_test_dw.
> Changes v6->v7:
>  - Changed variable name from data_cfg2 to data_linkup_notifier_disabled.
> 
>  Documentation/PCI/endpoint/function/binding/pci-test.txt | 2 ++
>  drivers/pci/endpoint/functions/pci-epf-test.c            | 8 ++++++++
>  2 files changed, 10 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/PCI/endpoint/function/binding/pci-test.txt b/Documentation/PCI/endpoint/function/binding/pci-test.txt
> index 3b68b95..dc39f47 100644
> --- a/Documentation/PCI/endpoint/function/binding/pci-test.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/PCI/endpoint/function/binding/pci-test.txt
> @@ -1,6 +1,8 @@
>  PCI TEST ENDPOINT FUNCTION
>  
>  name: Should be "pci_epf_test" to bind to the pci_epf_test driver.
> +name: Should be "pci_epf_test_dw" to bind to the pci_epf_test driver
> +      with a custom configuration for the designware EP.

The link between the "name" and the device created is quite obscure and
reading pci-test-howto.txt certainly does not clarify it.

In pci-test-howto.txt an explanation should be added to the configs
device creation paragraph to clarify it.

>  Configurable Fields:
>  vendorid	 : should be 0x104c
> diff --git a/drivers/pci/endpoint/functions/pci-epf-test.c b/drivers/pci/endpoint/functions/pci-epf-test.c
> index 7cef851..4ab463b 100644
> --- a/drivers/pci/endpoint/functions/pci-epf-test.c
> +++ b/drivers/pci/endpoint/functions/pci-epf-test.c
> @@ -459,10 +459,18 @@ static int pci_epf_test_bind(struct pci_epf *epf)
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> +static const struct pci_epf_test_data data_linkup_notifier_disabled = {
> +	.linkup_notifier = false
> +};
> +
>  static const struct pci_epf_device_id pci_epf_test_ids[] = {
>  	{
>  		.name = "pci_epf_test",
>  	},
> +	{
> +		.name = "pci_epf_test_dw",
> +		.driver_data = (kernel_ulong_t)&data_linkup_notifier_disabled,
> +	},
>  	{},

Should not this be a property derived from the controller compatible
property instead of the test device name written in configfs ?

I think I am missing something in the whole scheme of things, please
clarify.

Thanks,
Lorenzo