On 4/9/2018 7:51 PM, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> On 4/9/2018 7:29 PM, Keith Busch wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 09, 2018 at 10:41:52AM -0400, Oza Pawandeep wrote:
>>> +static int find_dpc_dev_iter(struct device *device, void *data)
>>> +{
>>> +   struct pcie_port_service_driver *service_driver;
>>> +   struct device **dev;
>>> +
>>> +   dev = (struct device **) data;
>>> +
>>> +   if (device->bus == &pcie_port_bus_type && device->driver) {
>>> +           service_driver = to_service_driver(device->driver);
>>> +           if (service_driver->service == PCIE_PORT_SERVICE_DPC) {
>>> +                   *dev = device;
>>> +                   return 1;
>>> +           }
>>> +   }
>>> +
>>> +   return 0;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static struct device *pci_find_dpc_dev(struct pci_dev *pdev)
>>> +{
>>> +   struct device *dev = NULL;
>>> +
>>> +   device_for_each_child(&pdev->dev, &dev, find_dpc_dev_iter);
>>> +
>>> +   return dev;
>>> +}
>>
>> The only caller of this doesn't seem to care to use struct device. This
>> should probably just extract struct dpc_dev directly from in here.
>>
> 
> Bjorn wants to kill the port service driver infrastructure but that is a much
> bigger task. 
> 
> How do we obtain the DPC object from the parent object directly? Each port
> service driver object is a children.
> 

How about implementing pcie_port_find_service_dev() as a follow up patch
to "PCI/PORTDRV: Implement generic find service" similar to what was done for
pcie_port_find_service()?

-- 
Sinan Kaya
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm 
Technologies, Inc.
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux 
Foundation Collaborative Project.

Reply via email to