Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 21 Jun 2022 15:37:39 -0500
From:   Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
To:     ira.weiny@intel.com
Cc:     Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
        Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>,
        Ben Widawsky <bwidawsk@kernel.org>,
        Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@intel.com>,
        Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@intel.com>,
        Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-pci@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V11 4/8] cxl/pci: Create PCI DOE mailbox's for memory
 devices
Message-ID: <20220621203739.GA1331637@bhelgaas>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220610202259.3544623-5-ira.weiny@intel.com>
Precedence: bulk

In subject, I assume you mean the plural "mailboxes", not the
possessive "mailbox's".

On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 01:22:55PM -0700, ira.weiny@intel.com wrote:
> From: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>
> 
> DOE mailbox objects will be needed for various mailbox communications
> with each memory device.
> 
> Iterate each DOE mailbox capability and create PCI DOE mailbox objects
> as found.
> 
> It is not anticipated that this is the final resting place for the
> iteration of the DOE devices.  The support of ports may drive this code
> into the pcie side.  In this imagined architecture the CXL port driver

s/pcie/PCIe/ to match other usage below.

> would then query into the PCI device for the DOE mailbox array.
> 
> For now this is good enough for the endpoints and the split is similar
> to the envisioned architecture where getting the mailbox array is
> separated from the various protocol needs.  For example, it is not
> anticipated that the CDAT code will need to move because it is only
> needed by the cxl_ports.
> 
> Likewise irq's are separated out in a similar design pattern to the
> PCIe port driver.  But a much simpler irq enabling flag is used and only
> DOE interrupts are supported.

I don't know what the convention is or will be for drivers/cxl.  In
drivers/pci, we favor "IRQ" over "irq" in English text to go along
with PCI, DOE, CDAT, etc.

Also makes "IRQs" intelligible where "irq's" looks a little funny
because the usage isn't possessive and "irqs" isn't obviously a word
or an acronym.

Bjorn