Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.35 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.35;
Date:   Thu, 30 Nov 2023 12:35:04 -0600
From:   Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
To:     Kevin Xie <kevin.xie@starfivetech.com>
Cc:     Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mason.huo@starfivetech.com,
        leyfoon.tan@starfivetech.com, minda.chen@starfivetech.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] PCI: Add PCIE_CONFIG_REQUEST_WAIT_MS waiting time
 value
Message-ID: <20231130183504.GA487377@bhelgaas>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <f0844a59-7534-4195-b656-eb51586cbff6@starfivetech.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 06:03:55PM +0800, Kevin Xie wrote:
> On 2023/11/30 7:21, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 09:45:08AM +0800, Kevin Xie wrote:
> >> Add the PCIE_CONFIG_REQUEST_WAIT_MS marco to define the minimum waiting
> >> time between sending the first configuration request to the device and
> >> exit from a conventional reset (or after link training completes).
> > 
> > s/marco/macro/
> > 
> > List the first event before the second one, i.e., the delay is from
> > exit from reset to the config request.
> 
> OK，I will use "from A to B" instead of "between A and B".

That's not my point.

My point was you said "between B (config request) and A (exit from
reset)".  "A" happens first, so it should be mentioned first.

> > I assume there are follow-on patches that actually use this?  Can we
> > make this the first patch in a series so we know we don't have an
> > unused macro lying around?
> 
> Yes, we will use the marco in the next version of our PCIe controller patches.
> Here is the link of current version patch series:
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20231115114912.71448-20-minda.chen@starfivetech.com/T/#u 
> 
> Do you mean that I should put this patch back to the above series as
> one of the separate patches?

Yes, please.  Handling them as a group is less overhead and helps
avoid merge issues (if they're all in a series there's no possibility
that the user gets merged before the macro itself).

Bjorn