Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
From:   Gustavo Pimentel <Gustavo.Pimentel@synopsys.com>
To:     Lukas Wunner <lukas@wunner.de>
CC:     "linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "dmaengine@vger.kernel.org" <dmaengine@vger.kernel.org>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 04/15] PCI: Add pci_find_vsec_capability() to find a
 specific VSEC
Thread-Topic: [PATCH v2 04/15] PCI: Add pci_find_vsec_capability() to find a
 specific VSEC
Thread-Index: AQHW+WCk8KFoXO5U70eM77z8tv2kyapFKi6AgAB9hHCAAGgwgIAAFE4QgAAJRQCAAAMEkA==
Date:   Wed, 3 Feb 2021 09:58:54 +0000
Message-ID: <DM5PR12MB1835224A170AAF195EDDF88BDAB49@DM5PR12MB1835.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
References: <cover.1612269536.git.gustavo.pimentel@synopsys.com>
 <2ecb33dfee5dc05efc05de0731b0cb77bc246f54.1612269537.git.gustavo.pimentel@synopsys.com>
 <20210202180855.GA3571@wunner.de>
 <DM5PR12MB18351689BA7312BF9DFDD6FEDAB49@DM5PR12MB1835.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
 <20210203075103.GA18742@wunner.de>
 <DM5PR12MB183576159AF458EE007149D1DAB49@DM5PR12MB1835.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
 <20210203093654.GA14315@wunner.de>
In-Reply-To: <20210203093654.GA14315@wunner.de>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: bf5c9fb9-5073-4414-8c0e-08d8c82a50f1
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 03 Feb 2021 09:58:54.4274
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: c33c9f88-1eb7-4099-9700-16013fd9e8aa
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: hwqB2tJpoyoJc1mHgSf2KZ/M1zAczjNPCNEcwLFc84cvvDxzdJ0loBC7a0+hTcNfhppAIE8D4dAepfor0TI72A==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM6PR12MB4941
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 9:36:54, Lukas Wunner <lukas@wunner.de> wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 03, 2021 at 09:11:03AM +0000, Gustavo Pimentel wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 7:51:3, Lukas Wunner <lukas@wunner.de> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 03, 2021 at 01:54:49AM +0000, Gustavo Pimentel wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 18:8:55, Lukas Wunner <lukas@wunner.de> wrot=
e:
> > > > > As the name implies, the capability is "vendor-specific", so it i=
s
> > > > > perfectly possible that two vendors use the same VSEC ID for diff=
erent
> > > > > things.
> > > > >=20
> > > > > To make sure you're looking for the right capability, you need to=
 pass
> > > > > a u16 vendor into this function and bail out if dev->vendor is
> > > > > different.
> > > >=20
> > > > This function will be called by the driver that will pass the corre=
ct=20
> > > > device which will be already pointing to the config space associate=
d with
> > > > the endpoint for instance. Because the driver is already attached t=
o the=20
> > > > endpoint through the vendor ID and device ID specified, there is no=
 need=20
> > > > to do that validation, it will be redundant.
> > >=20
> > > Okay.  Please amend the kernel-doc to make it explicit that it's the
> > > caller's responsibility to check the vendor ID.
> >=20
> > I don't think that would be necessary, as I said, the 'struct pci_dev *=
'=20
> > already points exclusively for the device' config space, which contains=
=20
> > all the capabilities for that particular device by his turn will be=20
> > attached to a specific driver by the Vendor and Device IDs to a specifi=
c=20
> > driver, that will know, firstly search for the specific device vendor I=
D,=20
> >  and then secondly how to decode it, and thirdly to do something with i=
t.
>=20
> The helper you're adding may not only be called from drivers but also
> from generic PCI code (such as set_pcie_thunderbolt()).  In that case
> the vendor ID is arbitrary.  Also, it doesn't *hurt* documenting this
> requirement, does it?

I understand now your PoV. In that case, I can add that info to the=20
function comment.

>=20
> Thanks,
>=20
> Lukas