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;
Date:   Wed, 25 Aug 2021 14:30:35 +0100
From:   Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>
To:     Yajun Deng <yajun.deng@linux.dev>
Cc:     catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH linux-next] arm64: PCI: Introduce pcibios_free_irq()
 helper function
Message-ID: <20210825133035.GA20522@e123427-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
References: <20210825071612.21543-1-yajun.deng@linux.dev>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210825071612.21543-1-yajun.deng@linux.dev>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 03:16:12PM +0800, Yajun Deng wrote:
> Introduce pcibios_free_irq() to free irq in pci_device_probe() and
> pci_device_remove() that in drivers/pci/pci-driver.c.

Add a rationale - it is just code inspection or you are fixing a bug ?

> Signed-off-by: Yajun Deng <yajun.deng@linux.dev>
> ---
>  arch/arm64/kernel/pci.c | 10 +++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/pci.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/pci.c
> index 1006ed2d7c60..40da5aff4548 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/pci.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/pci.c
> @@ -25,10 +25,18 @@
>  int pcibios_alloc_irq(struct pci_dev *dev)
>  {
>  	if (!acpi_disabled)
> -		acpi_pci_irq_enable(dev);
> +		return acpi_pci_irq_enable(dev);

This is an unrelated change and it is potentially introducing
regressions. I need to page in the reasons why on arm64 we had to resort
to pcibios_alloc_irq() (probe ordering IIRC) - in the meanwhile
this function stays as it is.

>  	return 0;
>  }
> +
> +void pcibios_free_irq(struct pci_dev *dev)
> +{
> +	if (!acpi_disabled)
> +		acpi_pci_irq_disable(dev);
> +
> +}

Adding pcibios_free_irq() makes sense and I believe it is a genuine
"fix".

Please add any information in the commit log that explains the
run-time condition you are fixing.

Thanks,
Lorenzo