Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-130076-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2024 23:10:31 +0800
From: Xu Yilun <yilun.xu@linux.intel.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>, Moritz Fischer <mdf@kernel.org>,
	Matthew Gerlach <matthew.gerlach@linux.intel.com>,
	linux-fpga@vger.kernel.org,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Wu Hao <hao.wu@intel.com>, Xu Yilun <yilun.xu@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] fpga: dfl: pci: Use pci_find_vsec_capability()
 when looking for DFL
Message-ID: <Zg1xZ+k8eZJwOs41@yilunxu-OptiPlex-7050>
References: <20211109154127.18455-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
 <8ccc133a-fb47-4548-fee3-d57775a5166d@redhat.com>
 <YYq4fSRoyzFE4Vei@smile.fi.intel.com>
 <39ac1f40-66ab-6c7e-0042-8fcdc062ed00@redhat.com>
 <YYuBz0tdduAk1c/6@smile.fi.intel.com>
 <3106bd57-9144-6a4d-8ad9-3ebf804018ab@redhat.com>
 <CAHp75Vf16mH4KQ232rip9MPLoSE1TmJ_jeiwVUzqxOH5b0RFJQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <Zg03BTubHLslIi_P@smile.fi.intel.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Zg03BTubHLslIi_P@smile.fi.intel.com>

On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 02:01:25PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 06:59:25PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 2:28 PM Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > On 11/10/21 12:24 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Nov 09, 2021 at 10:27:58AM -0800, Tom Rix wrote:
> > > >> On 11/9/21 10:05 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > >>> On Tue, Nov 09, 2021 at 07:55:43AM -0800, Tom Rix wrote:
> > > >>>> On 11/9/21 7:41 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
> > > >>>>> + voff = pci_find_vsec_capability(dev, PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL, PCI_VSEC_ID_INTEL_DFLS);
> > > >>>> This may be a weakness in the origin code, but intel isn't the exclusive
> > > >>>> user of DFL.
> > > >>> This does not change the original code. If you think so, this can be extended
> > > >>> later on.
> > > >> I would rather see this fixed now or explained why this isn't a problem.
> > > > This is out of scope of this change in a few ways:
> > > >   - we don't do 2+ things in one patch
> > > >   - the change doesn't change behaviour
> > > >   - the change is a simple cleanup
> > > >   - another vendor may well have quite different VSEC ID for DFL
> > > >
> > > > If you think that it should be needed, one can come up with it later on.
> > >
> > > Fixing a problem is more useful than a cleanup. The fix should come first.
> > 
> > What do you mean by that? The original code never worked with what you
> > are suggesting. There is nothing to fix in terms of "fix". What you
> > are proposing is a feature. And as we know the features are going into
> > the kernel in a natural order, means fixes - priority 1, cleanups /
> > refactoring as prerequisites to the feature enabling - priority 2,
> > feature - priority 3, other cleanups and code improvements - priority
> > 4.
> > 
> > That said, the proposed change definitely falls into category 2. It
> > makes the proposed feature to be easily realized.
> > 
> > Also, do not forget that vendor specific stuff is _by definition_
> > vendor specific, and the proposed feature is doubtful until you prove
> > there is another vendor-id pair.
> 
> Interestingly that you included
> 8607d9c1bd57 ("fpga: dfl-pci: Use pci_find_vsec_capability() to simplify the code")
> without even letting me know...

I'm sorry. Apparently I forgot what we've discussed in 2021.

In 2021, I was waiting for some more comments although I was already
good at your patch, but sadly I didn't follow up and missed it. In
2023, I was pretty sure no more comment and I could just apply.

Thanks,
Yilun

> 
> -- 
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko
> 
> 
>